UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Learned taste aversions by rats to compound stimuli Wilson, C. Scott 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A1 W54_8.pdf [ 8.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094246.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094246-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094246-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094246-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094246-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094246-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094246-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094246-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094246.ris

Full Text

LEARNED TASTE AVERSIONS BY RATS TO COMPOUND STIMULI by C. SCOTT B.A., E a s t e r n M.  WILSON  W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1969  A., E a s t e r n  Washington  S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1971  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in  t h e Department of Psychology  Wa a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e required standard  THE  (§)  i  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH A u g u s t , 1976  C.  Scott Wilson  1977  COLUMBIA  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  in p a r t i a l  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  f u r t h e r agree  make i t  freely available  that permission  for  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  this  that  study. thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s of  representatives.  this  thesis  It  is understood that  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l  written permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075  Wesbrook  V a n c o u v e r , V6T  1W5  P l a c e  Canada  Columbia  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  not be allowed without my  i  ABSTRACT  Learned  Taste  to  Aversions  Compound  by  Rats  Stimuli  by C. S c o t t Learned Ingestion Since  was  a v e r s i o n s occur  of a novel flavored  little  distinct  taste  i s known  flavors,  Wilson i f water-deprived  solution  i s f o l l o w e d by  toxicosis.  about l e a r n e d a v e r s i o n s t o m i x t u r e s  the p r e s e n t  series  o f s i x major  o f two  experiments  performed. In  LiCl  Experiment  toxicosis.  compound avoided  During  t h e component  subseguent  flavors  In Experiment  toxicosis.  During  test  flavors  more t h a n  subsequent  test  individual  I I I compounds o f two f l a v o r s ,  compound  avoidance  of the f a m i l i a r  Avoidance  of the novel s o l u t i o n  compound Experiment  with  o f t h e compound  another  flavor  flavors.  was  The r a t s  b u t showed much  d u r i n g subsequent  found. and one avoided  less tests.  was g r e a t e r t h a n when p u t i n  novel f l u i d  IV one f l a v o r  avoided  one f a m i l i a r  were f o l l o w e d by t o x i c o s i s .  and t h e n o v e l f l a v o r ,  The  taste  as w e l l as the i n d i v i d u a l  In  to the r a t s ,  rats  p e r i o d s , the r a t s  of s t r o n g e r avoidance  novel  the  were s e p a r a t e l y p a i r e d  Some e v i d e n c e Experiment  with  p e r i o d s , i n which t h e  were p r e s e n t e d ,  I I two f l a v o r s  t h e compounds o f t h e f l a v o r s  were p a i r e d  a s w e l l a s t h e compound.  was g e n e r a l l y a v o i d e d  elements. with  I compounds o f two f l a v o r s  and t h e i n d i v i d u a l  compound  the  rats'  and f o l l o w e d by t o x i c o s i s .  was e x p l i c i t l y  p a i r e d , while a  In  second  i i  flavor the  was e x p l i c i t l y  rats  compound  avoided  not p a i r e d  the paired  o f t h e two f l a v o r s  with t o x i c o s i s .  concentration  During  tests,  toxicosis,  was consumed i n  was o b s e r v e d one this  flavor  which f o l l o w e d  with  some f l a v o r s  both  and a n o t h e r flavors  as well  flavors.  In Experiment V was  o f t h e compound  increased. with  t o t h e more c o n c e n t r a t e d but not o t h e r s .  by t o x i c o s i s being  The  quantities  o f t h e compound  pairing  aversion  was f o l l o w e d  flavor  avoided  o f one f l a v o r  a stronger  testing  but not t h e u n p a i r e d t l a v o r .  i n t e r m e d i a t e between t h e two i n d i v i d u a l the  During  prior  f o ] lowed  flavor  I n E x p e r i m e n t VI  t o t h e compound o f  by p o i s o n i n g . Tiie  a s t h e compound  duriaq  rats  subsequent  tests. With t h e p o s s i b l e VI,  the r e s u l t s  results majority learning  obtained  exception  of the r e s u l t s  of these experiments are q u i t e i n more t r a d i t i o n a l l e a r n i n g  of the e f f e c t s  found  are accounted  theories.  Donald  H.  Wilkie  of E x p e r i m e n t similar  to the  paradigms. A  f o r by  contemporary  i i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  INTRODUCTION Learned  1 Taste  Aversions  1  CS-UCS I n t e r v a l  i n Taste  Cue-Consequence  Associability  Primitive Currant  Status o f Taste  Taste  f o r Dealing  Aversion  Compound S t i m u l u s  Aversion with  1 2  Taste  Learning  Aversions  .............  P o s s i b l e Unique  7 9  Aspects 9  Control  10  Research  13  METHOD  Organization  ..  Learning  Purpose o f t h e Present GENERAL  Learning  Systems A n a l y s i s o f Learned  A Strategy of  Aversion  15 of Experiments  15  Subjects  15  Procedure  15  EXPERIMENT I A : Compound C o n d i t i o n i n g w i t h Control  Preexposure:  by E l e m e n t s  18  Method  19 Subjects Procedure  19 .  19  Data P r e s e n t a t i o n and A n a l y s i s  21  Results  22  Summary o f R e s u l t s  EXPERIMENT I B : Compound C o n t r o l by E l e m e n t s Method  C o n d i t i o n i n g without  30  Preexposure: 32 32  iv  Subjects  ,.  32  .  32  Procedure Data P r e s e n t a t i o n  3^  and A n a l y s i s  3ir  Results Summary  38  of Results  38  Discussion  EXPERIMENT I I ; Compounding Elements  Separately  Conditioned  Taste  42  Method Subjects  42  Procedure  43  Data P r e s e n t a t i o n  4^  and A n a l y s i s  45  Results Summary  51  of Results  52  Discussion  EXPERIMENT I I I : Compound C o n d i t i o n i n g U n f a m i l i a r Taste Elements  with  F a m i l i a r and  Subjects  59  Procedure  59  Data P r e s e n t a t i o n  61  and A n a l y s i s  61  Results Summary  61L  of Results  Discussion  6£  EXPERIMENT I V : Compound C o n d i t i o n i n g Novel T a s t e s Method  59 59  Method  and  42  .,  with  Familiar  (Safe) 68 68  V  Subjects  68  Procedure  69  Data P r e s e n t a t i o n  and A n a l y s i s  70  Results  72  Summary o f R e s u l t s  7_L  Discussion  EXPERIMENT  V: O v e r s h a d o w i n g  i n T a s t e Compounds  81 82  Method Subjects  82  Procedure  83  Data P r e s e n t a t i o n  and A n a l y s i s  85? 85  Results  89  Summary o f R e s u l t s  89  Discussion  EXPERIMENT V I : B l o c k i n g : C o n d i t i o n i n g t o t h e E l e m e n t s o f a Compound T a s t e S t i m u l u s A f t e r P r i o r C o n d i t i o n i n g t o One Element  9f 99  Method Subjects  99  Procedure  99  Data P r e s e n t a t i o n  and A n a l y s i s  Summary o f R e s u l t s  113 113  Discussion  SUMMARY  103 103  Results  GENERAL  70  AND  DISCUSSION  123  vi  REFERENCES  127  APPENDIX A  138  L I S T OF TABLES  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  1. Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h g r o u p , showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e major p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t IA  20  2 . Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r aach g r o u p , showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n each o f t h e two major p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t IB  33  3 . Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h group, showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e two major p h a s e s o f Experiment I I  43  4. Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h g r o u p , showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e major p h a s e s of Experiment T I I  60  5 . Summary o f p r o c e d u r e , showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n each o f t h e t h r e e o f E x p e r i m e n t IV  69  major  phases  6 Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h q r o u p , s h o w i n g t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n each o f t h e two major p h a s e s o f Experiment V  83  7 . Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r each g r o u p , showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e major p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t VI  101  viii  LIST OF  FIGURES  F i g u r e 1-A. B a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 1 ..  ..  24  F i g u r e 1-B. B a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , aud e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 2  26  F i g u r e 1 - c . B a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 3  28  F i g u r e 1-D. B a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 4  29  F i g u r e 1-E. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n g r o u p s o f E x p e r i m e n t IB  fluid  intake  F i g u r e 2-A. C o n d i t i o n i n g Group 1  and e x t i n c t i o n  fluid  intake i o r  F i g u r e 2-B. C o n d i t i o n i n g Group 2  and e x t i n c t i o n  Figure  and e x t i n c t i o n  2-C. C o n d i t i o n i n g  Group  35  46 fluid  intake f o r 48  fluid  intaice f o r  3  49  F i g u r e 2-D. C o n d i t i o n i n g Group 4 Figure- 3-A. intake  for a l l  and e x t i n c t i o n  fluid  intake f o r 50  P r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f o r Group 1  fluid  F i g u r e 3-B. P r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n i n t a k e f o r Group 2  fluid  F i g u r e 4-A. intake  P r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n In C o n d i t i o n 1  fluid  F i g u r e 4-B. intake  D i f f e r e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n i n Condition 2  F i g u r e 5-A. C o n d i t i o n i n g Group 1  and e x t i n c t i o n  F i g u r e 5-8. intake  c o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n  Differential f o r Group 2  fluid  62 6I4.  72 t_.uid 73  intake f o r 86 fluid 8?  F i g u r e 5-C. C o n d i t i o n i n g Group 3  and e x t i n c t i o n  fluid  intake i o r  F i g u r e 6-A. C o n d i t i o n i n g Group 1  and e x t i n c t i o n  fluid  intake f o r  Figure  and e x t i n c t i o n  6-B. C o n d i t i o n i n g  88  10li fluid  intake i o r  ix  Group Figure  10£  2  6-C.  Group F i g u r e 6-D. intake  Conditioning  and e x t i n c t i o n  fluid  intake f o r 107  3 Preexposure, f o r Group 4  c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n  108  F i g u r e 6-E. C o n d i t i o n i n g Group 5  and e x t i n c t i o n  F i g u r e 6-F. C o n d i t i o n i n g Group 6  and e x t i n c t i o n  F i g u r e 6-G. intake  c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n ,..  Preexposure, f o r Group 7  fluid  fluid fluid  intake f o r .. .  109  intake f o r 111 fluid 112  JC  iCKNOWLEDGEMENTS I for like  would  their  especially like  assistance  t o thank C h r i s  comments r e g a r d i n g This Council  research  with  t o thank  the present  Don M i l k x e research.  F i b i g e r and R i c h a r d the present  I would  f o r their  also helpful  thesis.  was s u p p o r t e d  o f Canada g r a n t s  Teese  a n d Bod Wong  i n p a r t by N a t i o n a l  t o D. «. s i l k i e and fi. f a n g .  Research  1  ._.eajrn«d T a s t e The in  rats  t y p i c a l procedure f o r producing involves  interoceptive following such  Aversions  pairing  malaise  a novel taste  presented several  (1974) p o i n t e d  aversion  learning  conseguence usually  and l e a r n i n g  such as l i g h t s , exteroceptive  i n consumption  days l a t e r .  out s e v e r a l  procedures-  involves  saline)  aversions with  acute  d o s e s o f L i d ) . The r e s u l t o f  p a i r i n g i s a dramatic decrease  Eusiniak  (e.g.,  taste  (e.£. , t h e g a s t r o i n t e s t i n a l u p s e t  injection of sublethal  when i t i s n e x t  learned  Garcia,  differences  taste  i n more t r a d i t i o n a l c u e -  v i s u a l or auditory  conditioned  and t o n e s ,  unconditioned  Hawkins, S  between  T r a d i t i o n a l cue a v o i d a n c e  buzzers,  of the f l u i d  stimuli  paired  learning  s t i m u l i (CS)  with  aversive  (UCS) s u c h a s e l e c t r i c  shock.  For  a taste  association Garcia  aversion  t o be c o n d i t i o n e d  between t h e g u s t a t o r y  et a l .  (1974) a r g u e t h a t  t h e r e must  be a n  CS and t h e i n t e r o c e p t i v e  this association  UCS.  has c e r t a i n  u n i g u e g u a l i t i e s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e i t f r o m more t r a d i t i o n a l cue-conseguence l e a r n i n g . occurrence of learning {Garcia, Ervin, which t a s t e s  The two most s a l i e n t a r e t h e  despite  & Koelling,  very  long  CS-UCS i n t e r v a l s  1 9 6 6 ) , and t h e a p p a r e n t  and i l l n e s s e s a r e a s s o c i a t e d  (Garcia  &  ease  Koelling,  1 966).  CS-UCS I n t e r v a l i n T a s t e Taste aversion  Aversion  learning  Learning  i s affected  with  by p a r a m e t r i c  2  manipulations found  CS-UCS i n t e r v a l  the  than  several  cue  Becent  within  and  with  relatively  the  (Kimble,  hours.  occur  c o n d i t i o n i n g procedures.  1 9 6 7 ) . The  Traditional  work  by  of  Lett  with  learning  length  between  of  time  illness  has  often  seconds.  (1973,  a  few  1975), however, s u g g e s t s interval  reinforcement  The  r a t was  and  fed i f the  learned to  with  deprived  procedure.  r e s p o n s e i n a T-maze. U n l i k e i n e a r l i e r immediately  interval  previous  delays  removed t o a t e m p o r a r y  to the  area was  between c h o i c e  1 hour. This i s a formidable  traditional  a right-or  start  response  formulations  In  one  r a t s were r e w a r d e d f o r a  which f o l l o w e d  returned  that  c o n d i t i o n i n g paradigms. L e t t ' s  positional  delay  fails  learning i s possible  (1973) f o o d  the  been  more t h a n  experiment  r a t was  increases in  learning often  experiments i n v o l v e a delayed  the  However,  cue-consequence  long cue-conseguence  more t r a d i t i o n a l  those  in t r a d i t i o n a l  subsequent induced  intervals  to  time span i n v o l v e d i s c o n s i d e r a b l y  t h a t u s u a l l y assumed  formulations gustatory  i n ways s i m i l a r  degree o f c o n d i t i o n i n g decreases  CS-DCS i n t e r v a l ,  longer  to  the  i n more t r a d i t i o n a l  although the  of  of e f f e c t i v e  holding  cage f o r  left-arm choice.  at t h e  end  of the  delay  c o r r e c t . L e t t ' s r a t s have  and  delay  experiments,  food  reinforcement  when compared  of  up  with  cue-consequence  time  relations.  Cue-Consequence Assoc l a b i l i t y . The and  d i f f e r e n c e between t r a d i t i o n a l  t a s t e a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g s t r e s s e d by  concerns the  cue-consequence  p a i r s that  cue-consequence l e a r n i n g Garcia et a l . most e a s i l y  (1974)  enter  into  3  associations. sickness concept  "go of  G a r c i a et a l .  together". This i s similar  " b e l o n g i n g n e s s " and  "preparedness"that  strongly  malaise  supports the  associability  view  1972;  Domjan £ W i l s o n ,  1968;  G r e e n & G a r c i a , 1971;  are  ficGowan  Ervin,  more e a s i l y  than  & Green,  cite  1972;  gustatory-  Garcia & Koelling,  1966,  Green, Bouzos, &  Sachlin,  cues  Koelling,  G r e e n , Holmstrom, & Wollman, evidence  shows t h a t  a s s o c i a t e d with subsequent  are d i s t i n c t i v e  of  considerable evidence  1972a; G a r c i a , McGOwan, E r v i n &  1 9 6 8 ) . The  such  and  (189 8)  (1973) c o n c e p t  of p r e f e r e n t i a l  ( R o z i n , 1969;  Garcia,  g u s t a t o r y cues  to Thorndike's  Seligman's  G a r c i a e t a l . (1974)  1967;  Garcia &  maintain that  as f l a s h i n g  gustatory  1974; cues  illness  i n the r a t  lights,  buzzers,  and  clicks.  Garcia demonstrated  & Koelling this  associability.  (1966),  apparent  differential  They p a i r e d  water w i t h  lick  spout  clicking 0.1%  drinking  s o u n d , and,  saccharin, or  suppressed  drinking  component e l e m e n t s stimuli. water  During  decrease  Garcia results-  They u s e d  f o l l o w e d by the  taste  were a d m i n i s t e r e d by the r a t s  presented  & Koelling  cue-consequence  X-radiation  o f t h e compound CS,  i n consumption  study,  or L i C l  a flashing  alone-  drank l i t t l e  of the  However, t h e r e was  of the b r i g h t - n o i s y  unflavored  s t u d y , found  a compound s t i m u l u s c o n s i s t i n g  a  (either  defined  for control  p r e s e n t i n g the  (1967) , i n a n o t h e r  light,  of the f l a v o r  tests  of  poisoninq. A  NaCl). Following a c q u i s i t i o n ,  the t e s t s  when i t was  was  of course,  1.0%  classic  a compound s t i m u l u s c o n s i s t i n g  "bright-noisy-tasty" to the  i n a now  by  as the  component tasty no water.  similar  of a gustatory  element  (LiCl),  and a v i s u a l - a u d i t o r y - t a c t u a l e l e m e n t .  found, a f t e r s e v e r a l demonstrated only according 1 963).  CS-UCS p a i r i n g s , t h a t  by t h e t a s t e  to Erickson,  No i n t a k e  suppression  occurred  stimuli.  a n i m a l s showed no a v o i d a n c e  was  (similar i n taste to L i C l  Doetsch, & M a r s h a l l ,  visual-auditory-tactual the  of NaCl  control  They  1966, and Nachman,  i n t h e presence  In f a c t ,  they  point  of the out that  r e a c t i o n t o t h e compartment  where t h e v i s u a l - a u d i t o r y - t a c t u a l s t i m u l i were l o c a t e d . in  contrast  compartment  to the "fear r e a c t i o n " usually when e l e c t r i c  One c o u l d  argue  t a s t e c u e s and o t h e r mitigated  against  overshadowing greater  that  shock s e r v e s  the simultaneous  e n v i r o n m e n t a l cues  (Pavlov,  c o n t r o l of responding  compound r e l a t i v e history  to the t e s t  as t h e a v e r s i v e  c e r t a i n cues e n t e r i n g  effect  noted  This i s  stimulus.  presence o f both  (flashing l i g h t s , etc.) associations,  i . e . , an  1927). O v e r s h a d o w i n g r e f e r s t o t h e by one e l e m e n t o f a  t o another element  stimulus  when no p r i o r  conditioning  w i t h e i t h e r e l e m e n t c a n be assumed. F o r an o v e r s h a d o w i n g  interpretation  t o be v a l i d  one would have t o show t h a t t h e  o v e r s h a d o w e d c u e s were e a s i l y alone.  Arguing against  Garcia  S Koelling's  compartment  paired  reported  in fluid great  when  s u c h an o v e r s h a d o w i n g  (1967) work s h o w i n g independently  apomorphine h y d r o c h l o r i d e reduction  conditionable  intake.  difficulty  avoidance o f a d i s t i n c t i v e  with  i n using  interpretation i s  that  a  distinctive  nausea-producing  injections failed Garcia,  presented  t o c o n t r o l any  Kimeldorf, X-radiation  S Hunt  (1961)  to obtain  v i s u a l - t a c t u a l CS.  O t h e r e x p e r i m e n t s have shown t h a t  i ti s difficult  to  also  5  produce t a s t e a v e r s i o n s by p a i r i n g a gustatory cue  with a  consequence such as shock- G a r c i a S K o e l l i n g (1966) f o l l o w e d o r i g h t - n o i s y - t a s t y water with shock. The  test results  showed t h a t while the b r i g h t - n o i s y CS element  clearly  suppressed  d r i n k i n g , t a s t e alone d i d notHowever, d e s p i t e the a p p a r e n t l y  s o l i d evidence  the d i f f e r e n t i a l cue-consequenca a s s o c i a b i l i t y not gone unchallenged.  Rozin  supporting  p o s i t i o n , i t has  (1969) has questioned  consequence a s s o c i a b i l i t y n o t i o n by demonstratinq avoidance l e a r n i n g by a r a t to a p o s i t i o n and when f o l l o w e d by immediate s i c k n e s s  the  c^e-  rapid  type of c o n t a i n e r  (but not by s i c k n e s s 30  l a t e r ) . Others have r e c e n t l y j o i n e d Rozin i n q u e s t i o n i n g  min  the  d i f f i c u l t y of c o n d i t i o n i n g the avoidance of e x t e r o c e p t i v e s t i m u l i by p a i r i n g them with t o x i c o s i s 1973;  (Best, Best, &  M i t c h e l l , Kirschbaum, S P e r r y , 1975;  Morrison  Mickley,  S Collyer,  1974). Best, e t a l . (1973) reported t h a t r a t s , i n j e c t e d mg/kg apomorphine immediately  with  15  a f t e r a 2-min p e r i o d i n a black  compartment, spent s i g n i f i c a n t l y  l e s s time i n the compartment  l a t e r t e s t i n g than a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t r o l s - I f a compound of a black compartment and f l u i d  (water or s a c c h a r i n )  on  stimulus was  used,  a s i g n i f i c a n t a t t e n u a t i o n of the black compartment avoidance r e a c t i o n occurred-  However, the r a t s s t i l l  compartment- Apparently  avoided  the presence of the f l u i d  the  black  interfered  with c o n d i t i o n i n g to the black compartment. A r e l a t e d f i n d i n g was  reported by M i t c h e l l , et a l , - (1975).  They accustomed r a t s to the t e s t s i t u a t i o n f o r e i t h e r 10 or 25 aays p r i o r to c o n d i t i o n i n g . Then they i n t r o d u c e d a n o v e l complex  6  of  s t i m u l i composed o f a d i f f e r e n t f o o d  position, flavored cm).  as well food  (0.5 cm d i a m e t e r  Following  injected. complex not.  toxicosis from  that  conditioning  the other  i n direct relation  the  conditioning  avoided  an i m p o r t a n t  group d i d  CS-toxicosis research.  f a c t o r concerning  a p p e a r s t o be how  t o how l o n g  two  t h e CS  of previous  well  environmental cues. Obviously  out  (see  with only  o f 1.5  was  w h i l e t h e 10 day h a b i t u a t i o n  than the s e v e r a l r e q u i r e d  authors concluded  CS, L i C l  group c l e a r l y  powerful e f f e c t occurred  pairings rather  but t h e same  g r o u n d r a t chow i n s t e a d  30 min a c c e s s t o t h i s n o v e l  (consumed l e s s ) ,  i n a different  different textured  The 25 day h a b i t u a t i o n  This  The  as c o n t a i n i n g  container  CS-  t h e CS s t a n d s o u t t h e CS w i l l  stand  t h e r a t h a s been e x p o s e d t o  s i t u a t i o n p r i o r t o i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e n o v e l  Lubow, R i f k i n 6 A l e k ,  1976 f o r a f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n  CS  of t h i s  point) .  The  point  difficulty  of Garcia  of associating taste  also  recently  rats  subsequently avoided  drinking  et a l .  a 0-7% s a c c h a r i n  c u e - c o n s e q u e n c e l e a r n i n g might  aversion  as d i s t i n c t  in  many ways  point  out that from  s h o c k has that  solution after later.  the apparent " q u a l i t a t i v e "  between g u s t a t o r y - t o x i c o s i s  They  the  (1975) f o u n d  by s h o c k 0.5 o r 3.5 m i n u t e s  K r a n e and Wagner s u g g e s t t h a t  fashion.  concerning  c u e s and e x t e r o c e p t i v e  been q u e s t i o n e d . K r a n e & Wagner  i t was f o l l o w e d  difference  (1974) p o i n t  conditioning  be r e s o l v a b l e  conditioning  other  i n a guantitative  t h e CSs and OCSs u s e d  other  and  i n taste  procedures  differ  ( i n t e n s i t y , p e r i o d i c i t y , e t c . ) . I t i s thus  premature t o a c c e p t q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n cue-consequence associability i  when i t may be o t h e r  stimulus-conseguence  7  parameters similar 1975;  that  are r e s p o n s i b l e  s u g g e s t i o n has  B i t t e r m a n , 1975, Regardless  specificity  demonstrated  the  by  resolution  specificity auditory  systems  For pigeons t r a i n e d  controlled  to avoid  LoLordo  & Furrow,  to avoid  the r e d l i g h t , 1976).  Thus,  b a s i s of cue-conseguence more " t r a d i t i o n a l " detract  associations,  shock,  were food i n  control  was  a red  exerted  However, r e s p o n d i n g by o t h e r but on an a p p e t i t i v e  task  b u t n o t t h e t o n e (see a l s o  selective  cue-consequence  stimulus control  on  the  d e m o n s t r a t e d even i n  p r o c e d u r e s . T h i s does  uniqueness of  but d o e s show t h a t  or obtain  using  composed o f a t o n e and  r e l a t i o n s h a s been  from the p o s s i b l e  have  associability  shock  w i t h t h e same compound by  1975)  learning i s  o f the pigeon. Pigeons  the tone, but not the red l i g h t -  was  1974,  cue-conseguence  aversion  (1973,  of cue-consequence  to depress a treadle  pigeons trained  of the  i t s uniqueness t o t a s t e  p r e s e n c e o f a compound s t i m u l u s  light-  (Testa,  A  1976).  R e c e n t l y Foree & LoLordo  v i s u a l and  trained  made by o t h e r s as w e l l  of the f i n a l  notion,  questionable.  the  been  f o r the ease of a s s o c i a b i l i t y .  not  taste-sickness  o t h e r systems  have  similar  characteristics.  Primitive  Systems  Kalat learning  & Rozin  may  Analysis of Learned Taste Aversions (1972) have s u g g e s t e d t h a t  be n e u r o l o g i c a l l y  o t h e r cue-consequence from  internal (Herrick,  afferent 1961;  "more p r i m i t i v e "  learning-  t h e known d u a l i t y  Morest,  Support  of neural  inputs  i n comparison  c o n t r o l of e x t e r n a l  Garcia,  aversion  f o r s u c h a view  into the c e n t r a l 1967)-  taste  nervous  comes  and  system  HcGowan & Green  (1972)  to  8  point  out  t h a t a f f e r e n t neurons from  receptors the  p r o j e c t to  the  nucleus  b r a i n stem, t h u s p r e s u m a b l y  association  at a r e l a t i v e l y  piece  of evidence  i s the  found  i t possible to obtain  unconscious during Suresova & Bures the  the  (1974)  a p p l i c a t i o n o f KC1  depression preparation  has  low  neural  of R o l l  have r e p o r t e d cortex  and  1972). I t s h o u l d  recently  guestioned  the  f o r the  be  of r a t s  noted  validity  of these  i s the  recent  work by  that  intact  cortex  i s necessary  S Bures  aversion  i s prevented  induced  (1973) showed  shortly before  a f f e r e n t s reach  the  by  Buresova  that  bilateral  CS  learning  a l s o argues f o r a hypothesis  other  modalities.  "unconscious"  Fare!  &  has  experiments.  of  The  that  more  1962;  (1976)  taste  & Bures  important  o f e n t e r i n g i n t o complex  sensory  1971;  aversion  (1973),  showing learning.  saccharin  spreading  depression  fact  gustatory  (Norgen & L e o n a r d , are  spreading  (Horridge,  cortical  6 Akert,  capable  (cortical  a conditioned  Benjamin  is  and  illness. following  for taste aversion  presentation.  cortex  1959)  results  that Church  p o t e n t i a l complexity  Buresova  rendered  subseguent  S Fennessy,  learning the  ( 1 9 7 2 ) . They  in rats  similar  in  supporting  been d e m o n s t r a t e d i n o t h e r  Buerger  Buerger,  Arguing  One  & smith  common c u e - c o n s e g u e n c e l e a r n i n g p r o c e d u r e s 1975;  visceral  taste-illness  However, c o n d i t i o n i n g o f an  also apparently  Chopin & Buerger,  a  level-  presentation  and  fasciculus solitarius  a taste aversion  t o the  procedure).  the  facilitating  results  UCS  of  both g u s t a t o r y  that  1971,  i n taste the  1973; aversion  gustatory  system  l e a r n i n g i n ways s i m i l a r  to  9  Current  Status  The not  above r e v i e w  differ  learning. the  with  despite  1977, and L e t t , at least  other  long  types  l e a r n i n g may  o f cue-consequence  d e l a y s , no l o n g e r  of taste aversion learning  a p p e a r s t o be (see R o b e r t s ,  1977 f o r d i s c u s s i o n o f p o s s i b l e p r o b l e m s experiments).  i n cue-consequence a s s o c i a b i l i t y  n o t gone u n c h a l l e n g e d  1975; B i t t e r m a n ,  substrata  taste-illness  one o f L e t t ' s l o n g - d e l a y  specificity  Sagner,  Learning  that  t o o a p p r e c i a b l y from Learning,  certainly  Aversion  suggests  exclusive province  1976,  of  o f Taste_  1975).  of taste aversion  (Best e t a l . ,  The n o t i o n  l e a r n i n g has 1973; K r a n e  F u r t h e r , a unique  &  neural  l e a r n i n g h a s y e t t o be  unequivocally  demonstrated.  4 Stratec___ f o r Dealing, with Aversion Learning  P o s s i b l e Unique A s p e c t s  of  Taste  In s p e c i f y i n g t h e u n i q u e n e s s o f a l e a r n i n g phenomenon important  t o d e t e r m i n e t h e major  difference  differences, analysis,  paying  then  special  t o be s u r e was a d o p t e d  stimulus  c o n t r o l phenomena  more  traditional  i n v e s t i g a t e the apparent  attention t o a rigorous functional existence  i n the present  were examined  and o t h e r  thoroughly  of t h e i r  strategy  procedures  p o i n t s o f s i m i l a r i t y and  between o n e ' s phenomenon  phenomena. One s h o u l d  i t i s  found  (Bitterman,  research.  with  1976).  Certain  This  compound  traditional learning  i n the t a s t e aversion l e a r n i n g  procedure. The learning  demonstration and o t h e r  considered  results  cue-conseguences  an i m p o r t a n t  "uniqueness".  of s i m i l a r  Not o n l y  adjunct  between  taste-illness  l e a r n i n g procedures  t o the present  concern  would t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f c e r t a i n  was over learning  10  phenomena be and  i n c r e a s e d , but new  investigation  similarities. serve  would  The  occur  possibilities  through  demonstration  taste-illness  Com£Ound One  similarities  of  would  of the "unigueness"  also  of  learning.  Stimulus  Control  very important  phenomenon c o n c e r n s response  manipulation  the demonstration  of these  to better d e f i n e the boundaries  for  the  r  aspect  analysis  r e l a t i o n s governing  learning  controlling  a particular  conditioned  behavior  1966;  Sidman,  Nevin,  1973). A c o n t r o l l i n g  relation  response  e x i s t s i f responding  c h a n g e s when a s t i m u l u s i s  Razran  when an  procedures  neglected has  relations  investigated  by  their  present  by  are  Russian  v i s u a l system pigeon  1972;  modalities  concerning  i s especially  Johnson,  Zuckerman,  controlling  p a i r e d with  the  experimenters,  UCS, has  while  been  with  (Baker,  compound  1968;  e x t e n s i v e . Recent  1970;  (e.g.., B u t t e r  Weiss,  Chase & Heineman,  1972). the  work w i t h 1963;  the  Johnson  1972;  there  stimulus  compound s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l i n  i s an e x c e l l e n t example  Cumming, 1968;  of  i n compound c o n d i t i o n i n g  been c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n e d  literature  stimulus  Western c o u n t e r p a r t s . However, r e c e n t l y  c o n t r o l i n some s e n s o r y The  &  between a  t h a t the study  i n which s e v e r a l CSs  extensively  Ray  a s p e c t of a s t i m u l u s i s changed.  (1965) s u g g e s t e d  stimulus-response  Terrace,  stimulus-  1970;  or  1953;  any  1969,  presented,  Skinner,  of t h e  of  (Hay,  and  1972;  of the study  &  Blough,  1973).  Learning research using the  g u s t a t o r y system  has  always  11  been o v e r s h a d o w e d a p p e a r s t o be gustatory  by  use  little  compounds and  compounds  Koelling,  1966,  There  visual  work on  T h e r e have been a few auditory  of  rats'  their  ( e x p e r i m e n t s s u c h as  but  was  presence of  the  notthe  absence of the hydrochloric  odor-  acid  then t e s t e d  The  Taukulis  and  acquired  inhibitory  and  S  i . e . , the  of the be  was  odor  only  HCl  inhibited  T h i s model was  the  by  of  saccharin odor  was  presence  presented by  This  with  LiCl. of  in  not  the  to  HCl  b a s e d on  work  gustatory  group  in  the more  poisoning.  the  HCl.  taste stimulus  6 Wagner's  nature.  One  with  Taukulis  system  The was  (1972) model stimuli  and  & Revusky  is like  modalities i n i t s capacity to enter  had  avoidance  avoidance of the  dilute  o d o r o f amyl a c e t a t e  respect  with  or  g r o u p consumed  Rescorla  r e s p o n s e s o f a more t r a d i t i o n a l that the  the odor  following HCl-LiCl that  i n compound  the  of consumption  p r o p e r t i e s with  p r e d i c t a b l e from  (1975) s u g g e s t e d  plus  i t when t h e  followed  amyl a c e t a t e .  odor  always followed  to d r i n k  r a t s were t h e n  Revusky c o n c l u d e d  conditioning.  stimulus  of Garcia  was  c o n d i t i o n a l on  which  odor of  than a group g i v e n  found to  elements.  i s a conditional discrimination,  being  (HCl)  alone  to avoid  f o r suppression  presence, o f t h e  effects  to  ( 1 9 7 5 ) , f o r e x a m p l e , gave r a t s  rats learned  o d o r , but  This, of course,  behavior,  those  t a s t e of s a c c h a r i n  The  s a c c h a r i n consumption  HCl  behavior  earlier)-  t r i a l s where s a c c h a r i n  amyl a c e t a t e  was  There  experiments i n v o l v i n g g u s t a t o r y - v i s u a l  described  illness,  present-  conditioned  stimuli-  have a l s o been e x p e r i m e n t s on g u s t a t o r y - o l f a c t o r y  conditioning  the  auditory  r e s p e c t i v e component  compounds. T a u k u l i s & R e v u s k y  induced  and  other  i n t o complex  of  12  conditioning There presented 1971;  relationships.  have been some e x p e r i m e n t s flavors  using a taste  Der-Karabetian  Lindsey  & Best,  S Gorry,1974; K a l a t & Rozin,  1 9 7 3 ) . However, t h e s e  with t h e s t i m u l u s - r e s p o n s e  avoidance  of the s e v e r a l elements,  (Revusky, 1970, 1971;  were g e n e r a l l y n o t relations  governing  b u t r a t h e r were i n t e r e s t e d i n  p r o b l e m o f i n t e r f e r e n c e o c c u r r i n g between t h e CS and UCS.  T h e r e f o r e , they imposed  used  extra solutions  They found NaCl,  as i n t e r f e r i n g  stimuli  between t h e CS and UCS, and n o t a s e l e m e n t s o f a t a s t e  compound. An example  of t h i s  r e s e a r c h i s K a l a t and-. R o z i n  aversions to a sucrose  solution  even  c o f f e e and c a s e i n h y d r o l y s a t e , and t h e n  K a r a b e t i a n & Gorry replicated  r a t h e r than  as e v i d e n c e  seguentially interesting  results.  a s u s i n g compound s t i m u l i ,  successively taken  (1974) have done a s i m i l a r  K a l a t and R o z i n ' s  experiments  be  seguentially  a v e r s i o n procedure  concerned  the  with  t o note,  when f o l l o w e d by  p o i s o n i n g . Derexperiment  One c o u l d view  and  both  where t h e e l e m e n t s  occur  s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . These experiments  f o r element c o n t r o l  compounded  (1971).  by s u c r o s e  with t h r e e other t a s t e  when  elements.  however, t h a t D e r - K a r a b e t i a n  could  S Gorry  It i s (1974)  w h i l e o b t a i n i n g an a v e r s i o n t o c o f f e e when i t was t h e t a s t e element c l o s e s t was t h e f i r s t view t h i s  t o t h e UCS d i d n o t o b t a i n a n a v e r s i o n when i t  t a s t e element  f o l l o w e d by t h r e e o t h e r s . One c o u l d  a s o v e r s h a d o w i n g o f c o f f e e by t h e o t h e r  solutions,  p r o v i d e d one c o u l d show c o n t r o l  solutions.  These d a t a  studies.  three  by t h e o t h e r  were not- r e p o r t e d i n e i t h e r  o f t h e above  13  T h e r e have been o n l y a few p a p e r s d i r e c t l y compound & Best, study  gustatory  1973; R z o s k a ,  glucose  less  avoidance  obvious  compound  t a s t e s t i m u l u s o f 0.25% s a c c h a r i n a n d 3%  this  along  study  some e v i d e n c e  aversions-  o f the s a c c h a r i n  and t h e s a c c h a r i n t a s t e e l e m e n t , b u t much  o f the glucose  similarity  glucose  found  (1971) r e p o r t e d a  They r e p o r t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e a v o i d a n c e  plus  with  (Malone 5 Cox, 1971; L i n d s e y  1 9 5 3 ) . Malone & Cox  u s i n g a compound  glucose-  and  stimulus control  concerned  component. However, b e c a u s e o f t h e  the sweetness dimension  i s difficult  o f compound  He p r e s e n t e d  rats  of s a c c h a r i n  to interpret-  Rzoska  (1953)  s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l of t a s t e  with  various food  bases l a c e d  with  poison.  When t h e s u r v i v o r s were t e s t e d , i t was f o u n d  that  avoided  the poison  separately.  The  rats  d i d n o t a v o i d new  offending fairly  poison  clear  compound  t a s t e and 'the f o o d  t a s t e or food  demonstration  stimulus  poisons base  base p r e s e n t e d  o r new  by b o t h  i n the g u s t a t o r y system  pur£ose o f t h e P r e s e n t  taste with  stimuli,  This i s a  elements of a  of the r a t .  Research  Because o f t h e l a c k o f any s y s t e m a t i c stimulus-response  bases u n l e s s t h e  was p r e s e n t .  of c o n t r o l  relations  the present  governing research  r e s e a r c h on t h e  avoidance  o f compound  on t a s t e a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g  compound  stimuli  was u n d e r t a k e n .  investigating  certain  b a s i c c o n d i t i o n i n g phenomena  understanding  of learned  present  series  they  I t was  hoped t h a t by  taste aversions could  o f e x p e r i m e n t s was d e s i g n e d  a better  be o b t a i n e d .  to: f i r s t ,  The  evaluate  Q the  u s e f u l n e s s of combining  a compound  gustatory  t a s t e s o l u t i o n s i n a mixture  stimulus;  s e c o n d , e l u c i d a t e some  t o form  14  traditional compound the  conditioning  stimulus  phenomena u s i n g  a p p r o a c h ; and t h i r d ,  g u s t a t o r y - m a l a i s e system  system  the mixed-solution  a i d i n the delineation of  as a c o n d i t i o n a b l e  s i m i l a r t o o t h e r more commonly  studied  cue-consequence cue-consequence  systems. The  basic  method o f t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h ,  that  of mixing  t a s t e e l e m e n t s t o f o r m compounds, was b a s e d on t h e a s s u m p t i o n that  the t a s t e elements  separate different  are r e a d i l y detectable  e l e m e n t s , and do n o t merge t o form a  conditioning  phenomena. E x p e r i m e n t s  conditioning  to taste  by t h e r e s p e c t i v e  xndividually  paired  conditioning  member e l e m e n t s preexposed)avoidance  deal  with s i x b a s i c  IA and IB i n v e s t i g a t e d  compounds and t h e s u b s e q u e n t  w i t h c o n t r o l by compound  the  qualitatively  stimulus.  T'he e x p e r i m e n t s t o be r e p o r t e d  exhibited  by t h e r a t a s  taste  taste  control  elements. Experiment  stimuli  whose e l e m e n t s had been  w i t h t h e UCS. E x p e r i m e n t  III investigated  t o t h e e l e m e n t s o f a t a s t e compound were e i t h e r f a m i l a r  Experiment  II dealt  whose  ( p r e e x p o s e d ) o r n o v e l (not  IV was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e amount o f  b e h a v i o r o f a e x p e r i m e n t s V and VI were a t t e m p t s t o  demonstrate  overshadowing  phenomenon o f b l o c k i n g  (Pavlov,  1927), and t h e s i m i l a r  (Kamin, 1968, 1969)  respectively.  15  2J_2l!J__:_:_i_;i2S 2J_ E x p e r i m e n t s Each o f the s i x m a j o r composed o f s e v e r a l  e x p e r i m e n t s t o be d e s c r i b e d  s u b - e x p e r i m e n t s . Because  of the  was  general  s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e s e s u b - e x p e r i m e n t s t o each o t h e r , t h e y are a l l treated  as a u n i t  discussion. different  Each  groups  i n terms of t h e i r sub-experiment  methodology,  results,  and  i s d e s i g n a t e d by r e f e r r i n g  (or c o n d i t i o n s )  and t h e i r  to  respective  treatments.  Subjects Male and  female f i r s t ,  s e c o n d , and  third  generation  Agouti-  L o n g - E v a n s hooded c r o s s b r e e d s s e r v e d as s u b j e c t s i n a l l experiments.  M a l e s and  the g e n e r a l i t y of  British  Evans rats  o f the r e s u l t s .  Columbia's  hooded  chow was  and  were a l s o  tested  a l l experiments-  ad l i b .  E a t s were b r e d i n t h e  increase University  B i o p s y c h o l o g y animal c o l o n y . Four  female r a t s  were housed  throughout  f e m a l e s were u s e d i n o r d e r t o  used i n one  experiment. A l l  i n standard i n d i v i d u a l  home c a g e s  Access to standard Purina  Hater or a s p e c i f i c  Long-  concentration  of  pellet rat Saccharin,  N a C l , S u c r o s e , Q u i n i n e , V i n e g a r , C o f f e e , o r compounds o f t h e s e was  available  f o r 10  min  p e r day  depending  on t h e p r o c e d u r e i n  effect.  Procedure General experimental protocol consisted p e r i o d o f s e v e r a l days d u r i n g  which  of a  t i m e water  baseline  deprived  rats  had  16  10  min  access to  water  c y l i n d e r s attached  Following or  baseline  specific  water i n t a k e ,  solutions  i n e f f e c t each r a t r e c e i v e d a given  day  presented  for  or 10  d a y s . In min  conditioning  was  and  within  followed  in inverted  50ml g r a d u a t e d  t h e i r home c a g e s .  stable  preexposure to  was on  to  presented  10  was  min  access to  following  i n e f f e c t a s o l u t i o n was min  by  i n t r a p e r i t o n e a l i n j e c t i o n of  a 2% 0.15  conditioning  begun. I f  some e x p e r i m e n t s t a p  immediately  10  either  each  preexposure  the water  was  solution.  presented  of body  solutions  for  If  10  min  weight  molar L i C l  dissolved  in  tap  water. On  the  day  have been one rats  or  were g i v e n  began on  the  successive rats  following  10  min  days  a c c e s s to tap  10  completely min  water. T e s t i n g  be  Brown, 1970; bottle test  except  counterbalanced  followed was  immediately  continued  was  used guite  solutions  Vinegar  were  present  the  on across 10  all  min  several  obtained.  aversions  HcCleary, S McCleary, i n the  until  by  may  cycles  b o t t l e p r e f e r e n c e t e s t has  a more s e n s i t i v e measure o f Dragoin,  which  testing  were p r e s e n t e d  measures f o r e a c h s o l u t i o n  were g e n e r a l l y All  w a t e r . The  Solutions  A l t h o u g h a s i m u l t a n e o u s two shown t o  procedure,  s o l u t i o n - L i C l p a i r i n g s over days,  day.  {usually for  conditioning  access to tap  following  i n a group)  consumption  several  the  (Grote  1971), the  s e r i e s because the  been  &  single aversions  large.  were mixed by  which was  a w e i g h t t o volume  volume t o  procedure,  volume. A l l o f t h e  solutions  17  and  the  specific  experiments  have been u s e d  r e s e a r c h , except degree.  experiments  water and  remain  perhaps  Vinegar  with each  new  solution  C o f f e e and  mixing  fresh  has  react  inert and  Sucrose  after  s o l u t i o n s each  used  lesser  with i n the  inert in  do n o t  solution  combine  i n solution  and  they  or  with a s t r o n g  months by  breaking  g l u c o s e . A l s o the  i n Experiment  However, t h i s day-  used t o a  i t i s meant t h a t  several  sugars of f r u c t o s e  of time.  been  solutions dealt  substances  V i n e g a r compound  over a period  which  o t h e r . By  molecules.  will  down i n t o t h e i n e r t  react  Quinine  of  in taste aversion  a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be  separate molecular  change t o form  i n the present s e r i e s  extensively  C h e m i c a l l y most o f t h e  following with  c o n c e n t r a t i o n s used  was  I w i l l chemically minimized  by  18  EXPEEIMEWT IA £ 0 S 2 0 J H D CONDITIONING WITH PEEEXPOSURE: CONTROL BT~ELEMENTS •  Experiment  IA was d e s i g n e d  t o demonstrate c o n t r o l  e l e m e n t s o f a compound c o n d i t i o n e d conditioning  t o t h e compound  A l t hough o v e r s h a d o w i n g conseguence systems, generally  found  following  onlysometimes o c c u r s i n o t h e r c u e -  control  (e.g..  stimulus  by b o t h  Butter,  e l e m e n t s o f a compound i s  1 9 6 3 ) . I f a compound  solution  c o n s i s t i n g o f a m i x t u r e o f two d i s t i n c t i v e  followed  by t o x i c o s i s , an a v e r s i o n  should  compound, b u t t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l t a s t e aversion  learning  by t h e  i s not u n l i k e  occur  taste tastes i s  not only  to the  elements as w e l l , i f t a s t e  traditional  cue-conseguence  learning.  The tested  design  o f s u c h an e x p e r i m e n t r e q u i r e s  with t h e i n d i v i d u a l f l a v o r s a f t e r  pairing.  Since  r a t s a r e neophobic  they  might d r i n k  part  o f t h e compound,  order  to rule  flavors,  This  (i.e.,  Several  but b e c a u s e o f t h e e l e m e n t s *  simply  procedure  procedure of Kaiat presented  compound-illness  (e-£, M i t c h e l l , e t a l . , 1 9 7 5 ) ,  contribution  i n c l u d i n g one s p e c i f i c a l l y  sessions.  r a t s be  l e s s o f these elements, not because they  out the p o s s i b l e  were p r e e x p o s e d  that  to rats  i s equivalent  & Eozin  (197 3)  for several  groups of animals  were used i n o r d e r t o i n c r e a s e  alone)  f o r a few safety  f l a v o r s were  d a y s p r i o r t o CS-UCS conditioning  generality-  In  with t o x i c o s i s ,  to the learned  i n which  w i t h -varying  novelty-  o f neophobia, a l l  not p a i r e d  presented  were  pairings. histories  19  NaCl and taste  of  were u s e d as components o f one  compounds b e c a u s e o f t h e i r  aversion the  Saccharin  literature.  t o sweet,  (Kimura & B e i d l e r ,  use i n t h e  taste  S u c r o s e and Q u i n i n e were c h o s e n b e c a u s e o f  w e l l known d i f f e r e n t i a l the tongue  extensive  of t h e  sensitivity  of. t h e a n t e r i o r  and t h e p o s t e r i o r  portion  to  portion  bitter  1961) .  METHOD  Subjects Each o f f o u r female r a t s  groups  ( s e c o n d and  crossbreeds).  Group  involved  in a prior  received  one  0.25%  LiCl  been  pairing  Group t o one  exposed  Compound  Group  2 rats  after  3 consisted Compound  had  been they  preexposure t o  of r a t s t h a t  (Saccharin  and  had NaCl)-  t o t h e Compound and i t s  Group  ( S u c r o s e and  three  Long-Evans-Agouti  pairing  extinction).  male and  e x p e r i m e n t i n which  s u b s e g u e n t l y exposed  (i.e.,  then  were n a i v e -  Saccharin-LiCl  elements alone t o one  generation  taste aversion  exposed  and  composed o f t h r e e  third  1 rats  NaCl, but not S a c c h a r i n . previously  was  4 had p r e v i o u s l y  Quinine)-LiCl  been  pairing  and  extinction.  Procedure Table each  p r e s e n t e d to each group  during  major e x p e r i m e n t a l p h a s e .  Baseline fluid  1 shows t h e s o l u t i o n s  Preexposure Phase.  A l l rats  a c c e s s regime f o r s e v e r a l  recorded  until  consumption  was  were e x p o s e d  to the  d a y s . Water i n t a k e stable-  Following  limited  was  then  this,  each  20  animal  o f Group  solutions and  1 was g i v e n  10 min a c c e s s  (0.25% S a c c h a r i n ,  t o each o f f o u r  1-0% N a C l , S a c c h a r i n + N a C l  3-0% V i n e g a r ) , one e a c h d a y , c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d  Compound,  across  f o u r day  TABLE 1 Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h g r o u p , p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e major  showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t IA.  Experimental Baseline Preexposure  Group  3S4  presentation occurred presented  Test t r i a l s (Extinction)  Saccharin + NaCl  Saccharin NaCl Saccharin + NaCl Vinegar  Saccharin NaCl Saccharin + NaCl  Saccharin + NaCl  Saccharin NaCl Saccharin + • NaCl  Quinine Sucrose Quinine + Sucrose  Quinine + Sucrose  Quinine Sucrose Quinine + Sucrose  c y c l e s - T h i s f o u r day b a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e c y c l e On t h e day f o l l o w i n g t h e s e c o n d c y c l e water  was  f o r 10 min t o a l l r a t s Phase.  The c o n d i t i o n i n g phase  A l l s u b j e c t s were g i v e n  Saccharin  Conditioning (Solution-LiCl pairing)  Saccharin NaCl Saccharin + NaCl Vinegar  twice.  Cond^tionina day.  phase  and N a C l f o l l o w e d  10 min a c c e s s by a s t a n d a r d  began on t h e n e x t t o t h e Compound o f LiCl  injection-  The  21  same p r o c e d u r e presented Igst  10  repeated  next  day  testing,  f o r 10  a l l four  c y c l e s , f o r 10 min  day  on  the  f o l l o w i n g day-  access  to  min  five  test  Each s o l u t i o n  across  presentations  of each  there  was  no  Thus, the  preexposure  and  testing  N a C l , and  their  over  1,  except  three  day  essentially  the  (0.67mg Q u i n i n e / 1 0 0 ml  solution,  a compound  received four  five  Presentation  different and  and  intake  ( i n ml)  groups d u r i n g  not  conditioning  was  the  of the  the  intake of  p r e e x p o s u r e and  i n the  four  subject  (e.g.,  Vinegar). Saccharin,  4 subjects  order received  1 except  f o r the  w a t e r , 3.0%  Sucrose  Sucrose,  and  as  a  1.0%  taste  NaCl  p a i r i n g s . Group  3  Group 4 r e c e i v e d  taste solution  (NaCl)  was  extinction tests.  Analysis  e x t i n c t i o n phases of  Whether o r  and  non-paired  times  Each  same t r e a t m e n t  Compound-LiCl p a i r i n g s , while  only three  Actual  tap  by  each  i n a counterbalanced  number o f C o m p o u n d - L i C l  p a i r i n g s , a l s o , the  presented  Data  and  of Quinine  during  c y c l e s c o n s i s t e d of  as Group  solutions  solution),  the  s e q u e n c e s . Group 3 and  same t r e a t m e n t  four  solution.  fourth flavor  Compound p r e s e n t e d test  day.  followed  a l l animals.  Group 2 r a t s r e c e i v e d e s s e n t i a l l y Group  was  across  was  Solution presentations  c y c l e were c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d  received  following  s o l u t i o n s were p r e s e n t e d  e a c h day.  water-  Water  min.  P h a s e . T e s t i n g i n e x t i n c t i o n began t h e  During day  the  was  first  assessed  the  various f l u i d s  the  b a s e l i n e , preexposure, c o n d i t i o n i n g , e x p e r i m e n t a r e shown g r a p h i c a l l y .  a solution  decreased  extinction test by  for  a repeated  between  trial  baseline  after  measures t - t e s t  of  22  significance Because during to  w i t h n-1  between  baseline  and  in later  intakes  extinction  test  because  of d i f f e r e n t trial)  solutions  appropriate  scores.  Because tests text of  a s s e s s e d by T u k e y ' s  d e g r e e s of f r e e d o m error  o f 0.05  are s i g n i f i c a n t of the l a r g e only  first from were n o t  significance of differences in  mean s g u a r e r e s i d u a l  performed,  comparisons  Since these comparisons  was  (k-1) (n-1)  Significance levels comparisons  ( e . g . , on  differed  be e x p e c t e d  were done on s e r c e n t a g e change  p e r c e n t a g e change i n i n t a k e with  might  p a r t s of the the experiment,  preexposure  1968)  sometimes  such d i f f e r e n c e s  always o r t h o g o n a l , s t a t i s t i c a l  (Kirk,  freedom.  intake of the v a r i o u s s o l u t i o n s  baseline,  persist  degrees of  and  HSD  test  the  term.  were u s e d . A l l g r o u p  u n l e s s otherwise noted.  number o f c o m p a r i s o n s  and  significance  t h e more i m p o r t a n t a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e  f o r t h e sake o f c o n c i s e n e s s (a l i s t  significance results  of comparisons  i s presented i n appendix  and  test  A).  RESULTS Figures taste  1-A,  solutions  show e s s e n t i a l l y compound and  with L i C l  Figure  1-C,  f o r Groups  and 1-4  1-A  1-D  shows f l u i d  respectively.  levels.  e l e m e n t s was  intake  A l l four  t h e same p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s .  of the r e s p e c t i v e  preconditioning paired  1-B,  fora l l figures  Consumption  o f the  r e d u c e d compared t o  However, t h e i n t a k e o f t h e s o l u t i o n  d i d not decrease from  shows t h e r e s u l t s  preconditioning  o f Group  not  levels.  1. I n t a k e o f a l l  23  taste was  solutions during  high  and  the  second  baseline  comparable t o t h a t o f  Compound-LiCl  pairing  preexposure c y c l e  water. F o l l o w i n g  (C), consumption  of the  the  Compound  (8)  first dropped  dramatically.  A marked Compound o f each  reduction  occurred  in intake  during  the  first  of  17  ml  the  showed a r e d u c e d preexposure  of  first  0.5  than  Saccharin  Saccharin not  different  than  Saccharin  preexposure l e v e l s of  85%  intakes  (t =  or g r e a t e r .  intake  (q =  8.8).  A l l s i x a n i m a l s showed  Compound i n t a k e  t h a n Compound i n t a k e .  7.68),  with  second t o f i f t h  i n t a k e of the  Compound  remained a t high the  of  five  Intake  (1)  (g =  80%  8.89), with  trial  Compound, S a c c h a r i n ,  during  animal  of  unaffected.  every  second  animal  intake  animals drank  and  NaCl t h a n  extinction t r i a l  levels.  to f i f t h  less greater  was  showing  The  and  was  NaCl i n t a k e , h o w e v e r ,  23.73, 15.19, 22.65; r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  Vinegar  Every  similarly  (g  of  the  was  f r o m Compound i n t a k e . S a c c h a r i n  the  of  Five  ( t = 4 . 5 8 ) . NaCl c o n s u m p t i o n  of the  greater  trial.  8.59).  to  than NaCl consumption.  During  (t =  consumption  less =  ml  test  NaCl i n t a k e  (1)  f r o m a mean  first  intake  their  20%  however, was  the  ml  1.82  intake, ranging  s i x a n i m a l s showing r e d u c t i o n s  During  and  from  from b a s e l i n e  Vinegar,  Saccharin,  reduced  extinction test  Saccharin  levels  was  t o a mean o f  o f s i x a n i m a l s showed l e s s t h a n Compound d u r i n g  NaCl,  extinction presentation  s o l u t i o n . Compound i n t a k e  preexposure l e v e l  reduced  of  was  greater greater  considerably  Vinegar  a progressively  i t s elements occurred.  Intake  Comparisons of s o l u t i o n extinction t r i a l s  f o r each  2U  18  14- ^ Q UJ  _>  310 z  CO  o o  TRIALS F i g u r e 1-A. B a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 1. The l a s t b a s e l i n e ( B ) , a l l c o n d i t i o n i n g (C) , and a l l e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l s (1-5) a r e shown. F i l l e d s y m b o l s r e p r e s e n t i n t a k e o f w a t e r {ffr ) , N a C l (___), S a c c h a r i n (___), Compound ( £ ) , and V i n e g a r ( ^ ) . U n f i l l e d s y m b o l s r e p r e s e n t water i n t a k e on t h e day o f t h e f i r s t e x t i n c t i o n p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e a c h s o l u t i o n . A l s o shown a r e s t a n d a r d e r r o r s o f t h e mean ( v e r t i c a l b a r s ) .  solution seguence-  g e n e r a l l y confirmed Compound i n t a k e  animals during Contrary  the second  to the f i r s t  test  the r e s u l t s  was l o w e r  than Saccharin  and t h e t h i r d trial,  of the f i r s t  test  intake  in all  extinction tests.  Compound  intake  was l o w e r  than  25  NaCl i n t a k e (g =  test.  Figure  in  trial  1-B  was  Compound  14.75  during  from  ml  reduced  f r o m a mean o f  a mean o f  the f i r s t  c o n s u m i n g l e s s t h a n 20%  intake  intake  was  remaining  trial.  NaCl i n t a k e  test  ml t o 2.92  and  during  lower than  Saccharin  intake  There  ml  during  levels  presentation.  Saccharin  on i t s s e c o n d  presentation-  Figure  1-C  solutions  conditioning  was  (t = 9.95). E v e r y  Saccharin,  w i t h many  amounts. test  trial  was  intake-  Saccharin  lower than  less  than  Compound  intake  f o r the NaCl  preexposure l e v e l s i n  of the experiment. Intake of  i n t h r e e a n i m a l s by t h e  intake s t i l l  shows t h e r e s u l t s  was  reduced  f o r Group 3.  were consumed a t h i g h l e v e l s .  trials,  was  the experiment. Intake of the  substantially  to baseline  intake  were no d i f f e r e n c e s between  animal f o r the duration  returned  taste  the f i r s t  b o t h N a C l and  trials.  Compound r e m a i n e d every  of preexposure  ml  ml o f t h e  (q = 4.86), b u t n o t S a c c h a r i n  test  14 ml t o 0.17  t o 5 ml {t = 5 . 5 1 ) . S a c c h a r i n 15.33  occurred.  t h a n 0.5  a n i m a l showed r e d u c e d i n t a k e o f N a C l and  Compound i n t a k e  Substantially  with t o x i c o s i s  A l l a n i m a l s consumed l e s s  solution  during  1 were o b t a i n e d . R e d u c t i o n s  paired  reduced from  reduced  NaCl  NaCl t h r o u g h t h e  h i g h e r than NaCl i n t a k e  as t h o s e o f Group  i n t a k e was  trial  f o r a l l animals.  i n t a k e o f a l l the s o l u t i o n s  = 11.47).  lower than  p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f Group 2.  same r e s u l t s  Compound (t  Saccharin intake  second t e s t  the  the second t e s t  6 . 6 ) . Compound i n t a k e r e m a i n e d  fourth the  i n a l l animals during  i n t a k e o f t h e Compound  NaCl  second  i n every animal  A l l preexposed During the  was  reduced to  low  26  B C C 1 ,2 3 4 5 TRIALS F i g u r e 1-B. B a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 2- See F i g u r e 1-A f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f s y m b o l s and l a b e l i n g .  levels. NaCl  was  I n t a k e o f Q u i n i n e , S u c r o s e and t h e Compound, b u t reduced  on t h e f i r s t  extinction  a n i m a l s showed Compound c o n s u m p t i o n (t  =  (t  = 5.98). Q u i n i n e i n t a k e  (t =  10.35).  Sucrose  test  of l e s s  intake reductions  trial.  t h a n 0.5  ranged  r e d u c t i o n s ranged  from from  Five of s i x ml  38% t o 44%  not  to  99% 99%  7.57) .  Compound i n t a k e  during  the f i r s t  test  trial  d i d not  differ  27  from did  Sucrose  not d i f f e r -  greatly (g  or Quinine  reduced  relative  t o NaCl  = 12.35, 9.94, 10.14;  Sucrose, reduced  and t h e i r  remained Sucrose and  four  Compound  third  extinction  trials.  the  to that  second  (second test  test,  reduced  was s t i l l and  siqnificantly  results  aqreement  and  test  taste  trial  lower  trials  levels  levels  than  than  Sucrose  Sucrose.  throughout  1-D)  prior  Quinine  on t h e t h i r d significantly test  t r i a l , but  Intake o f Sucrose  testing.  are essentially i n taste  to c o n d i t i o n i n g .  solutions  During the  c o n d i t i o n i n g , i n t a k e o f t h e Compound  Q u i n i n e and S u c r o s e , (t =  relative  consumption  was l o w e r t h a n  o f Group 3. A l l p r e e x p o s e d  following  elements,  preexposure  f o r the second  and Q u i n i n e i n a l l a n i m a l s .  of Group 4 ( F i g u r e  with those  trials.  i n t a k e was v e r y h i g h  i n t a k e was no l o n q e r  similar  were consumed a t h i g h first  two t e s t  t o Q u i n i n e i n t a k e by t h e f o u r t h  Quinine remained  The  Consumption o f Quinine  i n a l l animals  q = 6.53), and l o w e r  relative  remained  and Q u i n i n e , Compound i n t a k e d u r i n g  extinction  (q = 6-23). Compound  intake  r e c o v e r y o f Compound  of Sucrose  and t h i r d  trial  intake of Quinine,  f o r the next  NaCl  i n t a k e o f Compound, S u c r o s e ,  relative  test  was  to i t s preexposure-levels f o r  trials.  reduced  Because o f t h e s l o w e r  trials,  i n c r e a s e d . Compound  i n a l l animals  i n t a k e remained  and Q u i n i n e  during the f i r s t  extinction  four e x t i n c t i o n  reduced  and Q u i n i n e  respectively).  i n a l l animals r e l a t i v e  the remaining  Intake of Sucrose  I n t a k e o f t h e Compound, S u c r o s e ,  Over t h e n e x t  to  intake.  was r e d u c e d  compared t o  15.64, 7.23, 16.96; r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  i n t a k e p r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g  d i d not d i f f e r .  NaCl  I  I  1  I  I  I  I  I*  I  I  I  I  BCCCCC 1 2 3 4 5 TRIALS  F i g u r e 1-C. B a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e , - c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 3. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g . F i l l e d s y m b o l s r e p r e s e n t water ( ) , Sucrose (H), Quinine ) , Compound ( ) , and NaCl {___,). U n f i l l e d s y m b o l s r e p r e s e n t c o r r e s p o n d i n g water i n t a k e a s e x p l a i n e d i n Figure 1-A. During  the  first  between Compound T h e r e was Quinine.  and  a l s o no Intake  considerably  test t r i a l  there  were no  S u c r o s e , o r Compound and  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  o f Compound, Q u i n i n e  reduced  from  NaCl i n t a k e  and  differences Quinine  i n t a k e s of Sucrose  (g =  14.5,  intake.  Sucrose  and  was 10.98,  13.58;  29  x  x  BCCCC1 2345 - TRIALS  F i g u r e 1-D. B a s e l i n e p r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 4. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g , and F i g u r e 1-C f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e symbols.  respectively).  During the remaining four  test  trials  remained  reduced  relative  animals-  Sucrose  i n t a k e a l s o remained  the in  duration  Compound  t o i t s preexposure  of the experiment-  a l l a n i m a l s on i t s s e c o n d ,  level  reduced  Quinine intake  intake in a l l  i n a l l animals f o r remained  but not subseguent  test  reduced  30  presentations. A comparison test  trials  of s o l u t i o n  shows t h a t  d i f f e r e d . . Compound  intakes during  i n t a k e o f Compound  intake  i n a l l animals d u r i n g t h e second  intake  was l o w e r  test  and S u c r o s e  was c o n s i s t e n t l y  intake  than Quinine i n t a k e  t h e second  lower than  and t h i r d  to  fifth  never Quinine  tests.  d u r i n g t h e second  Sucrose  and  third  cycles.  Two  further  Experiment  points  IA: f i r s t ,  essentially  t h e same  s h o u l d be made r e g a r d i n g  t h e r e s u l t s of  an a n a l y s i s o f t h e raw d a t a results  yielded  as t h e a n a l y s i s o f p e r c e n t change  ( t h i s i s true of a l l experiments  i n the present series  p e r c e n t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n d a t a were a n a l y z e d ) ; s e c o n d , water i n t a k e illness  l e v e l s a s shown i n F i g u r e  bouts. A lack  was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c present  1-A  o f any p o s t - i l l n e s s  of t h e r e s u l t s  where  post-test  were u n a f f e c t e d effect  on w a t e r  o f every experiment  by intake  i n the  series.  Summary o f B e s u i t s Despite rats  preexposed  compound and  differing  to different  and v a r i a t i o n s  i t s component • f l a v o r s d u r i n g  rats  be a t t r i b u t e d  conditioning  less  subsequent  extinction  was g e n e r a l l y  less  trials.  d i d not change. S i n c e reduced  compound-illness pairing  t o neophobia-  of a  o f t h e compound  t o t h e compound e l e m e n t s ,  intake of these f l a v o r s a f t e r easily  drank  unpaired with t o x i c o s i s  were p r e e x p o s e d  i n procedures,  f l a v o r s and t h e n . t o a p a i r i n g  o f two f l a v o r s and t o x i c o s i s  Intake of a f l a v o r the  histories  cannot  I n t a k e o f t h e compound  after  than intake o f the elements.  31  Over a s e r i e s compound  of extinction  trials  t h e a n i m a l s d r a n k more o f t h e  and component f l a v o r s . A v e r s i o n  extinguished  most  slowly.  t o t h e compound  32  12  JIEI1IMJJT  COMPOUND CONDITIONING J_ITHOUT P R E E X P O S 0 H i CONTROL BY ELEM ENTS  T h i s experiment II-  The  without was  preexposing  determine the  reaction novel  the  to novel  taste  replication  as i s E x p e r i m e n t  to-be-conditioned  to assess  compounds and  compound-toxicosis to  a systematic  same b a s i c p r o c e d u r e  done i n o r d e r  novel  was  their  was  Experiment used,  taste stimuli-  but  This  c o n d i t i o n i n g of a v e r s i o n s  to  r e s p e c t i v e elements f o l l o w i n g  pairing. effects,  the  IA  of  Subjects  i f any,  were a l s o t e s t e d i n  of a general  order  neophobic  t a s t e s t i m u l i f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n i n g to  other  stimuli.  METHOD  Subjects Four g r o u p s o f r a t s  were u s e d . Group  male c r o s s b r e e d s  and  2,  c o n s i s t e d of three  3,  and  4 each  crossbreeds.  1 c o n s i s t e d of  f o u r female Long-Evans hooded r a t s . male and  A l l s u b j e c t s were n a i v e  with  three  four Groups  female  respect to  taste-  toxicosis conditioningProcedure Table  2 shows t h e  s o l u t i o n s presented  major phase o f Experiment limited then  fluid  recorded  Conditioning min  access  access  IB.  A l l rats  to each  group i n each  were e x p o s e d  regime f o r s e v e r a l days.  to  the  Water i n t a k e  was  f o r s e v e r a l days. P h a s e , on  to a novel  t h e f o l l o w i n g day taste solution.  a l l rats  Group 1 r a t s  were g i v e n received  10  33  a c c e s s t o a compound Group 2 r e c e i v e d of  tap water,  solution  a compound  and  3-0%  of  1-0%  solution  N a C l and  0-25%  Saccharin-  o f 0.67mg Q u i n i n e per  S u c r o s e . Groups  3 and  4 received  100ml  access  TABLE 2 Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h g r o u p , s h o w i n g t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e two major p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t IB.. Experimental Conditioning (Solution-LiCl  Group  phase Test t r i a l s (Extinction)  pairing)  NaCl+Saccharin  NaCl+Saccharin NaCl Saccharin  Quinine+Sucrose  Quinine+Sucrose Quinine Sucrose Vinegar NaCl+Saccharin Saccharin NaCl  Vinegar  Vinegar Quinine+Sucrose Quinine Sucrose  Vinegar  to  a  3.0%  injected access to  Vinegar s o l u t i o n . w i t h L i C l . On  Phase.  Each  subject  over  t h e n e x t day  this,  a l lrats  were  a l l rats received  10  min  water.  Test  three  Following  taste  On  the following  of Groups solutions  successive  1 and  day  testing  2 received  in extinction a different  (Compound and i t s r e s p e c t i v e  t h r e e day  test  cycles until  several  began.  o r d e r of the elements) consumption  34  measures f o r each extinction  with  solution  were o b t a i n e d -  the o r i g i n a l  Vinegar  solution,  a 1.0% N a C l s o l u t i o n ,  NaCl over  4 day t e s t  of  Vinegar,  a 3.0% S u c r o s e  compound o f S u c r o s e cycles. followed  cycles.  a 0.25% S a c c h a r i n  and a Compound  solution,  o f S a c c h a r i n and  a Quinine  presentations  solution  counterbalanced  was a v a i l a b l e  by 10 min a c c e s s  solution,  Group 4 r e c e i v e d t e s t  and Q u i n i n e  Each s o l u t i o n  Group 3 was t e s t e d i n  over  and a  f o u r day  f o r 10 min on a g i v e n day  t o t a p water.  D a t a P r e s e n t a t i o n and A n a l y s i s This aspect Experiment  o f t h e experiment  IA. S o l u t i o n i n t a k e s  was s i m i l a r  { i n ml) d u r i n g  to that of testing  were  compared  w i t h e a c h o t h e r and w i t h c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f t h e  solution  p a i r e d with  T u k e y ' s HSD  illness.  A l l comparisons  were made  with  shows c l e a r l y  that  test.  RESULTS Fluid pairing decrease  i n t a k e f o r Groups  a n o v e l compound i n consumption  1 and 2 r a t s  solution  of the taste  compound. Groups 3 and 4 show t h a t Vinegar or  does not r e s u l t  Quinine.  toxicosis  results i n a  elements as w e l l as of the  p r i o r c o n d i t i o n i n g with  i n suppressed  i n t a k e of NaCl,  Sucrose,  However, a S a c c h a r i n i n t a k e r e d u c t i o n r e l a t i v e t o  N a C l and a N a C l + S a c c h a r i n test  with  Compound  d i d occur  during the f i r s t  cycle. Figure  largest  1-E, p a n e l  1, shows t h e r e s u l t s o f Group 1. The  reduction i n f l u i d  intake, relative  to intake of the  TRIALS F i g u r e 1-E. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r a l l g r o u p s o f E x p e r i m e n t I B . P a n e l s 1 and 2 show f l u i d i n t a k e f o r G r o u p s 1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . P a n e l 1 ( f i l l e d s y m b o l s ) shows w a t e r ( ) , NaCl ( A ) ' S a c c h a r i n ( 0 ) and Compound (0) i n t a k e ( u n f i l l e d symbols c o r r e s p o n d t o f i r s t e x t i n c t i o n t r i a l i n t a k e of corresponding f i l l e d symbols). Panel 2 ( f i l l e d symbols) shows water ( ( } ) # Q u i n i n e ( ) , S u c r o s e ( _ | ) # and Compound ( 0 ) i n t a k e ( u n f i l l e d s y m b o l s same as P a n e l 1 ) . P a n e l s 3 and 4 show f l u i d i n t a k e f o r G r o u p s 3 and 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y . F i l l e d s y m b o l s o f p a n e l 3 show t h e same s o l u t i o n s a s p a n e l 1 w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f V i n e g a r ( ^ ) . F i l l e d symbols o f p a n e l 4 show t h e same s o l u t i o n s a s P a n e l 2 w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f V i n e g a r  Compound  on t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g  Saccharin+NaCl  day, o c c u r r e d  with t h e  Compound. Compound i n t a k e d e c r e a s e d  from a  36  conditioning smaller intake  day mean l e v e l  reduction  t o a mean o f 5.7 ml o c c u r r e d  (g = 6 . 1 4 ) . N a C l  (g = 5.83). A l l e i g h t seven 70%  intake  t o Compound  g =  (relative  during  Saccharin  Compound  extinction test  test  t h e second  the f i r s t ,  solutions  during  t h e second  lower than  and t h i r d  and  2 of Figure  intake  intake  test  i na l l  Neither  to c o n d i t i o n i n g test.  NaCl i n t a k e  i na l l  c y c l e s . Compound  intake  intake  i n a l l animals  t e s t c y c l e s . Intake  extinction trials  shows a  of  these  gradual  levels.  1-E shows p r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g  f o r Group 2. I n t a k e  o f t h e Compound  was r e d u c e d  i n a l l a n i m a l s f o l l o w i n g two C o m p o u n d - L i C l p a i r i n g s ,  f r o m a mean o f 14.16 ml t o 1.05 ml  Quinine  intake  three  to preconditioning  Panel  going  s e c o n d , and t h i r d  over t h e next  was  g = 5.41;  reduced  (relative  was c o n s i s t e n t l y l o w e r t h a n S a c c h a r i n  greatly  (NaCl,  trial  presentations.  was r e d u c e d  i n t a k e remained  animals during  fluid  o f between 50% and  c o n d i t i o n i n g . Compound  o f t h e Compound)  while  was no d i f f e r e n c e i n c o n s u m p t i o n o f  and t h i r d  o r NaCl i n t a k e  intake  recovery  reduced i n t a k e ,  t o c o n d i t i o n i n g day l e v e l s ) r e m a i n e d  a n i m a l s on t h e s e c o n d  during  i n Saccharin  c o n d i t i o n i n g . Consumption  o f t h e Compound  5.11). There  N a C l and S a c c h a r i n  during  the f i r s t  than consumption  Saccharin,  day  intake  (g = 1 1 . 2 5 ) . A  t o a mean o f 6 ml  t o N a C l and S a c c h a r i n  of both elements during greater  was r e d u c e d  a n i m a l s showed t h i s  showed r e d u c t i o n s  relative  o f 12.2 ml t o 0.26 ml  intake  levels  showed Q u i n i n e  was r e d u c e d  (q = 2 8 . 5 8 ) .  Sucrose  from c o n d i t i o n i n g day Compound  (g = 28.34 and 21.0; r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . A l l a n i m a l s c o n s u m p t i o n o f between 3 and 6 m l . S u c r o s e  intake  37  ranged  from  0-1 t o 2-5 ml- Compound  differ  on t h e f i r s t  extinction  however, c o n s i s t e n t l y extinction (g  trial  = 7.17).  levels) the  remained  third.  o f Compound  intake  reduced  Sucrose  trial-  Quinine intake  (relative  test  Quinine  but n o t t h e t h i r d  reduced  i n a l l a n i m a l s f o r t h e second  Compound  intake  presentation. second  was l o w e r  = 5.71),  reduced-  but not  test  during  remained trials.  extinction.  t h a n Q u i n i n e on t h e s e c o n d were n o t d i f f e r e n t  on t h e  on t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g test  trial  and t h e Compound  Saccharin intake  f o r Group 3.  s t i m u l u s ) was r e d u c e d  from  day (g = 6.68), and from t h e  of NaCl  (g = 1 3 . 7 5 ) ,  (q = 9 . 3 1 ) . N a C l  was n o t d i f f e r e n t  i n t a k e o f V i n e g a r . Consumption  Saccharin  intake  from  was n o t  conditioning  of V i n e g a r i n c r e a s e d  over  trials.  Figure  1-E, p a n e l 4, shows t h e r e s u l t s f o r Group 4. One  Vinegar-LiCl pairing  d i d not r e s u l t  intake of the novel s o l u t i o n s  Compound. trial  intake  and t h i r d  differed  (the c o n d i t i o n e d  intake of the f i r s t  test  trial,  i n a l l a n i m a l s on t h e  1-E, p a n e l 3, p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s  intake levels  in  trial-  Q u i n i n e and S u c r o s e  Intake of Vinegar  day  the f i r s t  test.  Figure  (g  test  also  intake never  was,  t o c o n d i t i o n i n g day  was r e d u c e d  second,  and S u c r o s e  d i d not  (g = 7.32) o r S u c r o s e  d u r i n g the second  intake  Compound  intake  higher i n a l l animals than  intake  Compound  and S u c r o s e  Vinegar intake  (g = 1 1 - 3 4 ) .  i n any a p p r e c i a b l e r e d u c t i o n  of Sucrose, Quinine, o r t h e i r  was r e d u c e d  following  Vinegar i n t a k e remained  a n i m a l s on t h e s e c o n d  test  presentation.  one c o n d i t i o n i n g  reduced  in a l l  38  Summary, o f R e s u l t s Pairing  o f a compound o f two n o v e l f l a v o r s  p r o d u c e s an a v e r s i o n compound.  t o t h e component f l a v o r s  A g e n e r a l neophobic  reaction  cannot  with  illness  as well  as to the  account f o r these  results.  DISCUSSION The  results  of E x p e r i m e n t  by t h e e l e m e n t s o f a g u s t a t o r y demonstrated elements with  this  effect  demonstrated  neophobic r e a c t i o n , e l e m e n t s which the  compound  demonstrated  that  Consumption the e f f e c t  but r a t h e r  was c o n f i n e d  level.  consumption  The  of Groups  conditioning  4 the s i m i l a r i t y  consistent unpaired  effect.  intake,  striking.  of course,  showed t h a t  the d i f f e r i n g  of t h e i r  NaCl s o l u t i o n  reduction i n  e l e m e n t s and t h e  was n o t l i m i t e d  The l a c k  large  3 and 4, which  conditioning,  compounds. C o n s i d e r i n g and  compound. In f a c t  t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10% o f i t s c o n d i t i o n i n g  t o t h e component t a s t e  results  stimulus  o f Group 1 was r e d u c e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 60%.  Group 2 showed a s i m i l a r l y  S u c r o s e compound Compound  t o those  was r a t h e r  N a C l i n t a k e was r e d u c e d o v e r 80%. Compound  day  of the  was n o t a g e n e r a l  degree o f s u p p r e s s i o n t o t h e elements  was r e d u c e d f u r t h e r ,  1 and 2  of Vinegar unpaired  were members o f t h e c o n d i t i o n e d  S a c c h a r i n consumption  control  s t i m u l u s . Groups  f o r a compound c o n s i s t i n g  NaCl and S a c c h a r i n .  LiCl  IA c l e a r l y  received  Compound.  Q u i n i n e and  element  control  after  t o N a C l and S a c c h a r i n past  histories  o f Grou.ps 3  b e h a v i o r s u g g e s t s a p o w e r f u l and  o f any r e d u c e d  intake  of the  again supports the s p e c i f i c i t y  of the  39  effect.  a s shown by Groups 1 and 2, was  NaCl i n t a k e ,  susceptible to conditioning suppression LiCl  even  results  a f t e r a s many as f i v e  r e s u l t s of Experiment of Experiment  respective  elements.  3 and 4 t h a t LiCl  Although reduced  intake  a novel  relative  reduced  fact  i t was o b s e r v e d  intake  experiments t h a t  followinq  the f i r s t  presentation  reaction  one would have t o p e r f o r m  the present  series  o f t h e 0.25%  reduced rather  from  that of  large  neophobic  a between g r o u p s a n a l y s i s t o  much o f t h e S a c c h a r i n  suppression  was due t o any n e o p h o b i c r e a c t i o n . T h i s h a s n o t  been done m a i n l y Experiment  because  IA t h a t  i n compound  I f one c o n s i d e r s system t h a t flavors  p a i r i n g . In  S a c c h a r i n + N a C l - L i C l p a i r i n g was due t o c o n d i t i o n i n g ,  much  Saccharin  Because o f t h i s  was  i t does not appear  c o n s i s t e n t l y throughout  how  pairing  was due t o t h e V i n e q a r - L i C l  water i n t a k e .  how  o f a 1.0% N a C l , a  Vineqar-LiCl  t o water i n t a k e ,  baseline  following  the r e s u l t s of Groups  t a s t e s o l u t i o n such as Vinegar  s o l u t i o n was a l w a y s somewhat  determine e x a c t l y  their  mq Q u i n i n e / 1 0 0 ml t a p water s o l u t i o n .  of Saccharin  somewhat  Saccharin  f l a v o r compounds and  does n o t reduce subsequent i n t a k e  this  of  Compound-  1 a n d 2, e x t e n d t h e  I t i s a l s o c l e a r from  following  that  and  Sucrose-Quinine  I B , Groups  IA t o n o v e l  3.0% S u c r o s e , o r a 0.67  of  and y e t showed no s i g n s o f  pairings. The  with  highly  i s able  as well  i t seems q u i t e  r a t s are capable with  evident  from t h e r e s u l t s  of respondinq t o  NaCl.  the adaptive  t o respond  s i q n i f i c a n c e of a  gustatory  t o t h e e l e m e n t s o f a compound o f  a s t o t h e compound i t s e l f ,  i t becomes r e a d i l y  40  understandable  why  especially  visually  deal  on  rood  from  the  such  i t s taste  identify  sources  of  a harmful  sickness.  Experiments  than  Experiments  and  IA and  IB  relations  traditional  One  IB a t t e s t  to separate  capable  in traditional  of c o n d i t i o n i n g i n other  by  the  separate  which  control  by  a musical chord  and  F.  while  Elayassan the  generally the  CS  consisting  found  fairly  compound e l i c i t e d  Experiments no  IA  and  clear  IB  but  i t was  salivary  equal  differential  great  is  On  the  effect was  similar  conditioned  control  by  groups,  each  G,  element,  reflex. there  s u p p r e s s i o n t o one  s u b j e c t showed some i n any  other  Pavlovian  of t h r e e component n o t e s ,  showed t h a t , o v e r  not  reflex  a greater salivary  Compound. E a c h i n d i v i d u a l  control,  dogs i n w h i c h an  o b t a i n e d . The  i s sometimes  t h e e l e m e n t s i s sometimes  by  to  more  elements of a  study  was  stimulus-  procedures  (e.g_., B u t t e r , 1 9 6 3 ) . R a z r a n (1965) r e p o r t s a  the l a t t e r  gustatory  procedures.  stimulus control  with  the  of  the  found  to  of  by  t a s t e s present  (e.<_., J o h n s o n & Cumming, 1 9 6 8 ) .  E l y a s s a n i n 1938  of  in a  followed  results  instrumental learning  equal  t o be  o f e n t e r i n g i n t o complex  c o n t r o l of responding  hand, m o r e - o r - l e s s  sources  to the a b i l i t y different  great  able to  found  argue s t r o n g l y f o r viewing  stimulus-conseguence  compound s t i m u l u s  the  be  t a s t e d and  a c c o r d i n g l y . The  f e a t u r e o f compound  observed unequal  and  typical  animal,  potential  T h u s , t h e r a t must  that o r i g i n a l l y  respond  s y s t e m o f t h e r a t as response  for distinguishing  IA  An  endowed r a t , must depend a  malaise.  g u s t a t o r y system  a compound  should e x i s t .  element even i f i t i s l a t e r  context  in  less  system  different  rats'  an a b i l i t y  was  element  of  differential  s u b j e c t . Group  1 in  C,  41  Experiment Saccharin with  IA d i d show a r a t h e r by N a C l . The  i n the d i s c u s s i o n  overshadowing  possible  strong  "overshadowing"  reasons f o r t h i s  will  of the r e s u l t s f o r Experiment  experiment.  e f f e c t of be  V,  dealt the  42  EXPEEIHENT I I COMPOONDING SEPAR ATELY~*CONDITIONED TASTE ELEMENTS  This experiment conditioned will  also  followed result  aversive  t a s t e elements w i l l  be a v o i d e d - I f two t a s t e by i l l n e s s ,  A result  Miller,  (Henderson,  controls  traditional  £ Weiss,  1970).  Response  that  the p o s s i b i l i t y o f observing a  one g r o u p o f r a t s  not p a i r e d  (1972)  stimuli  element p r e s e n t e d  with t o x i c o s i s .  a distinguishable  was p r o v i d e d I t has been  with a  salient  s u g g e s t e d by  s t i m u l u s not a s s o c i a t e d  an a v e r s i v e e v e n t i s n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e a l a r g e will  learning  1972).  to f a c i l i t a t e  summation e f f e c t ,  Weiss  t o each  1964, 1972; Wolf, 1963;  more r e s p o n d i n g t h a n e i t h e r  order  solution  O'Leary,  that  be e x p e c t e d on t h e b a s i s o f  from  1975; W e i s s ,  than)  o c c u r s when t h e compound o f two c o n d i t i o n e d  s e p a r a t e l y (Weiss, In  would  literature  1969; van H o u t e n ,  summation  which  elements a r e s e p a r a t e l y  e q u a l t o (or g r e a t e r  such a s t h i s  r e s p o n s e summation  paradigms  form a compound  a subseguent combination o f these should  i n an a v e r s i o n  element. the  was d e s i g n e d t o d e t e r m i n e i f two  summation  with  effect  occur.  METHOD  subjects Four g r o u p s o f f i r s t , crossbreeds  served  s e c o n d , and t h i r d  as s u b j e c t s .  male and t h r e e f e m a l e r a t s ,  generation  Each g r o u p c o n s i s t e d  e x c e p t Group  2 which  o f three  was composed o f  43  two  males and  three females  due  to the  death  o f one  rat-  Procedure T a b l e 3 shows t h e s o l u t i o n s major e x p e r i m e n t a l  p h a s e . Group  presented 1 rats  to each  group i n  r e c e i v e d one  each  NaCl-Licl  TABLE 3 Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r each g r o u p , s h o w i n g t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n each o f t h e two m a j o r p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t I I . Experimental Conditioning (Solution-LiCl pairing)  Group  1&2  3  4  and  one  day  with  phase  NaCl Saccharin  Saccharin+NaCl Saccharin NaCl  NaCl Saccharin Vinegar (not p a i r e d )  Saccharin+NaCl Saccharin NaCl Vinegar  Coffee Vinegar  Coffee*Vinegar Coffee Vinegar Saccharin+NaCl  Saccharin-LiCl water a l o n e  water-only  day  was  Test t r i a l s (Extinction)  pairing  i n a counterbalanced  also  interspersed cycle  compound  were p r e s e n t e d  i n a counterbalanced  t h r e e day  o f Compound, N a C l ,  and  NaCl,  between c o n d i t i o n i n g  In t h e t e s t i n g  over  One  i n t e r v e n e d between s u c c e s s i v e p a i r i n g s .  testing.  animals  order.  p e r i o d s . Each  S a c c h a r i n , and  One  and  their  order across a l l  rat received presentation  Saccharin several  times.  44  Group 2 r a t s of  Group  were t r e a t e d  1 except  always presented Presentation remaining  of  two  that first  w a t e r on  days o f  rats  day  initially  a l l rats  each t h r e e  following  solution.  pairing  occurred, f o l l o w e d the  Vinegar  solution.  serving  Sanka) and test  for  Vinegar  the a  differences.  Yinegar  suppression  the  first  an  to  taste 1,  2,  over  of  the  Group 1  instead  of  pairing. A l l  pairing  (either  access to  the  solution-toxicosis  by  10  testing was  min  access to  the  cycle  as  given  once t o a l l  similarly of  to  those  NaCl and  described  of  Group  Saccharin Coffee  (instant  were u s e d . A l s o i n o r d e r  a n o v e l compound f o l l o w i n g  unrelated  cycle-  element, the and  3 was  to  prior  compound o f  presented  NaCl  during  cycle.  SlLiS. P r e s e n t a t i o n format  those  s t i m u l i , a 0.5%  solution  test  cycle.  Instead  used f o r Groups  test  min  solution  test  taste  10  day  the  were t r e a t e d  conditioned  to  day  t h r e e day  also  2-5%  to  presented  another  next  The  Saccharin  IB.  this,  1 started.  and  and  with  next  conditioning  The  day  the  f o r two as  one  Following  Group 4 r a t s 1 except  then  first  was  was  cycle-  solution-toxicosis  On  a f t e r the  test  a solution-toxicosis  Vinegar  rats  day  those  Saccharin  counterbalanced  identically  each  Saccharin),  Group  N a C l and  was  Vinegar s o l u t i o n  received  i d e n t i c a l manner t o  i n e a c h t h r e e day  Saccharin  NaCl or  for  an  compound o f  were t r e a t e d  a 2.5%  the  to  N a C l and  Group 3 r a t s except that  the  in  and  and  Analysis  procedures  A l l comparisons  were s i m i l a r t o  were made w i t h  Experiments  T u k e y ' s HSD  test.  IA  BES0LTS  The the  results  of a l l t h e groups  compound was t r e a t e d  elements  as b e i n g composed  and n o t a s a n o v e l s o l u t i o n .  compound o f t h e c o n d i t i o n e d greater  Figure  2-A  Compound  of  shows t h e r e s u l t s  trials  consumption  solutions  conditioning 3 ml 0-1  (g = 1 9 . 6 ) , ml and 1.5 ml  first  test  relative  The each  trial  3-5 ml. C o n s u m p t i o n  ranged  consumption  consumption  o f both  to intake of these between 0.1 ranged  during ml and  between  (q = 1 0 . 4 ) . T h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e between  fluids  0.1 ml and 0.5 ml f o r f i v e  NaCl c o n s u m p t i o n  remaining test solution.  presentation showed t h i s presentation  trials  during the  of NaCl or S a c c h a r i n  of Saccharin effect.  t o NaCl i n t a k e trial.  to conditioning  second or subseguent  the cross  consumption f o r o v e r on t h e t h i r d  and t h e Compound. F i v e o f s i x a n i m a l s  Compound i n t a k e  relative  relative  show i n c r e a s i n g  Note e s p e c i a l l y  was r e c o v e r e d by t h e t h i r d  the  between  while Saccharin  of both  of  t o t h e Compound.  taste  reduced  was f o u n d . E v i d e n c e o f  g = 10.3; N a C l , g = 2 1 . 0 ) .  was r e d u c e d compared  trials.  element p r e s e n t e d  t o consumption  (Saccharin,  ranged  equal t o or  f o r Group 1. C o n s u m p t i o n  s i x a n i m a l s , w h i l e one consumed  element  taste  of the  was shown.  was r e d u c e d r e l a t i v e  on c o n d i t i o n i n g Compound  of conditioning  that,  o f t h e two a v e r s i v e  was e i t h e r  Some e v i d e n c e f o r summation  specificity  the  elements  demonstrated  Intake reductions  than the s u p p r e s s i o n t o e i t h e r  separately. the  clearly  was r e d u c e d on i t s s e c o n d d u r i n g c o n d i t i o n i n g , but  Compound  i n t a k e was n o t  day i n t a k e o f S a c c h a r i n  presentations.  NaCl i n t a k e  during  on t h e  46  -J  1  L_  I  I  L  I  B C 1 2 3 4 5 TRIALS  F i g u r e 2-A. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n 1- See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g f i l l e d and u n f i l l e d symbols-  second day  presentation  intake,  intake  levels-  presentation relative intake  while  was s t i l l  Saccharin  The most  Saccharin  intake  interesting  relative  to the intake  o f both reduced  data  of t h i s  was h i g h e r  second  o f t h e Compound  NaCl and S a c c h a r i n relative  Compound  t o NaCl i n f o u r  t h e same i n o n e , and s l i g h t l y h i g h e r intake  to c o n d i t i o n i n g  was a t c o n d i t i o n i n g day  o f s o l u t i o n s was t h e i n t a k e  was c o n s i d e r a b l y  animals,  reduced  f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group and e x p l a n a t i o n o f  of s i x  i n one (g = 4-53).  t h a n Compound i n t a k e  in five  of s i x  47  a n i m a l s , and  equal  a summation  on  2-B  was  shows t h e  reduced  4.72). T h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s s u g g e s t  consumption  Consumption  r e s u l t s o f Group  relative  conditioning t r i a l s  Compound  (q =  effect.  Figure Compound  i n one  to  (NaCl,  ranged  o f N a C l and  Saccharin  There  was  no  difference during  Saccharin  or  NaCl r e l a t i v e  although  suppression first  four  to the  test  0.5  ml  also  of  and  both  to t h e  first  test  Compound  ml.  between i n t a k e no  i s confounded  with  of  summation  greater  Compound t h a n t o e i t h e r e l e m e n t  seguence, t h i s  of  respectively).  (i.e.,  a n i m a l s showed  6.5).  from i n t a k e  5.33;  the  solutions q =  1.5  differed  (q = 9.33,  the  of f i v e  Consumption o f  13.41; S a c c h a r i n ,  between  conditioning t r i a l s  effect),  consumption  q =  these during  2.  during  order  the  of  presentation. The Compound  e x t i n c t i o n data intake  was  agree  well with  r e d u c e d on  the  intake  during  c o n d i t i o n i n g , but  intake  on  second  the  the  intake  of  this  trial  s o l u t i o n on  Group 1,  only  Compound  in a l l animals.  N a C l was  curves of  third  presentation.  observed  The  in four  out  the  Also  prediction  that  intake  the  longer  to  Group  1.  relative  effect, of  note the  the  rats,  NaCl NaCl  relative  day.  crossover  of  the  effect  clearly  s i g n i f i c a n c e was  presented  Compound of  "safe"  not  the  reached.  Vinegar  i n Figure NaCl and  to  the  s o l u t i o n s on  was  to  Contrary  Saccharin  which r e c e i v e d are  to  Saccharin.  different  conditioning  Although t h i s  of f i v e  summation  no  trial  relative  Compound and  r e s u l t s f o r Group 3,  e n h a n c e any  not  of  consumed i n l a r g e r amounts t h a n  extinction test  was  second  that  2-C.  to The  Saccharin  48  I  I  Figure  2-B.  2.  Figure  See  filled  and  would be  no  and  for abscissa  unfilled  not  upheld.  l a b e l i n g and  Group 3*s  2.  During  decrease i n intake  of  the  However, f o l l o w i n g t h e  first  intake  f o r Group  explanation  of  test  suppression  to  either  results essentially replicated  the  c o n d i t i o n i n g days t h e r e  unpaired  conditioning  s o l u t i o n s decreased  During the  ;  symbols-  G r o u p s 1 and  taste  !  extinction fluid  c o n s i s t e n t l y l e s s than the  e l e m e n t was those of  I  I  B C 1 2 3 4 TRIALS  Conditioning 1-A  I  I  solution  phase,  (Vinegar).  intake  of a l l other  dramatically.  trial  there  were no  was  differences  49  \  Figure 3. See filled  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  B C 1 2 3 4 5 TRIALS  2-C. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g and e x p l a n a t i o n o f and u n f i l l e d s y m b o l s e x c e p t f o r t h e a d d i t i o n o f V i n e g a r  (Tib e t ween s o l u t i o n i n t a k e s -  However, d u r i n g  the  second  d i f f e r e n c e s emerged due  to d i f f e r e n t i a l  intake  Compound i n t a k e i n f i v e  and  was  greater than  slightly  l o w e r i n one  (q =  Compound c o n s u m p t i o n  d i d not  effect-  effect  However, t h e  extinction rates.  4-46), w h i l e  differ. occurred  test,  Again  of s i x animals  Saccharin note  i n only  NaCl  the  four of  and  crossover six  50  animals,  while  being  reversed  i n two  others.  B C 12 3 4 5 TRIALS F i g u r e 2-D. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 4. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g . F i l l e d s y m b o l s r e p r e s e n t water ( # ) , C o f f e e ( • ) , V i n e g a r ( • ) , Compound ( ) / and N a C l + S a c c h a r i n compound ( 0 ) . U n f i l l e d s y m b o l s show c o r r e s p o n d i n g water i n t a k e f o r t h e f i r s t e x t i n c t i o n p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e a c h s o l u t i o n ( f i l l e d symbols) .  Figure very  similar  2-D  shows t h e r e s u l t s  t o those  o f Groups  f o r Group  4. The r e s u l t s a r e  1, 2, and 3. The Compound o f  51  C o f f e e and V i n e g a r  was a v o i d e d  t o an e x t e n t  similar  to the  i n d i v i d u a l e l e m e n t s . The l a c k o f any s u b s t a n t i a l r e d u c t i o n i n i n t a k e o f t h e n o v e l Compound, NaCl+ S a c c h a r i n ,  clearly  specificity  taste  Intake trial  of the reduced  o f t h e Compound was l o w e r  than  intake of the other  (NaCl+Saccharin)  during  shows t h e  solutions.  the f i r s t  test  c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f C o f f e e  (q = 5 . 8 ) , b u t n o t V i n e g a r .  The  reduced  intake of Coffee  previous experiments the  Coffee+Vinegar  reduced  compared  different and  Compound d u r i n g  (g =  intake during  from C o f f e e .  during  However, a s w i t h  the f i r s t  test  Intake o f  trial  was  t o c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f C o f f e e 13.6). the f i r s t  During  Compound i n t a k e d i f f e r e d .  differed  was s i m i l a r t o  (g = 15.02, 13.32; r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  (g = 17.62) and V i n e g a r Compound  and V i n e g a r  testing.  Again  Group 3, t h i s  the l a s t  two t e s t three  trials  test  Compound and V i n e g a r note  the c r o s s o v e r  effect  was s e e n  was n o t  trials  Coffee  intake  never  effect.  i n only  four  animals.  Summary  of Results  When two t a s t e s o l u t i o n s a r e i n d i v i d u a l l y illness  and t h e n  o r more than reaction  compounded, t h e compound i s a v o i d e d  the i n d i v i d u a l  cannot  paired  account  elements. A general  f o r these  results.  with a s much a s  neophobic  52  DISCUSSION  The  results  gustatory rats  as  novel  clearly  cues are  being  compounded, t h e  n e o p h o b i c r e a c t i o n as Compound. The  conclusions capable  of Experiment  and  These d a t a concerning  the  i n complex  accord  combination  ( c f . Weiss,  stimulus  c o n t r o l i s the  taste aversion  flavors,  o f numerous  with  concluded  that the  dimension  which c o n t r o l s  a  intake basic  system  is  gustatory  extensive  literature  e l e m e n t s and  compound  Suppressive  demonstrated  than the  conditioning)  summation when  then  two  put  in  suppression  to  (1972) a n a l y z e d  compounding o f s t i m u l u s  stimulus  concerning  t o x i c o s i s and  greater  ( p r i m a r i l y operant the  an  summation e f f e c t .  1972). Weiss  with  as  general  the  gustatory  1972). A major f i n d i n g  concerned  a  reduced  ways t o a compound  c o n d i t i o n i n g would be  (Weiss,  r u l e out  II support  rats'  w e l l with  separately associated  flavor  simply  of s e p a r a t e l y c o n d i t i o n e d  compound, p r o d u c e s u p p r e s s i o n either  the  not  the  elements.  fairly  elements  in  of Experiment  I: t h a t  i t s respective  (Group 4)  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  results  aversive  compound i s t r e a t e d by  procedures  being  of responding  stimulus  when two  composed o f a v e r s i v e e l e m e n t s and  solution- Control  of the  demonstrate t h a t ,  the  results  experiments  elements,  compound l i e on  a  and  stimulus  responding:  [ A ] c o m p o s i t e c o n t i n u u m i s d e f i n e d by t h e o n - o f f s t a t e s o f a l l r e l e v a n t d i s c r i m i n a t i v e or c o n d i t i o n e d s t i m u l i , one c o n t i n u u m e x t r e m e a n c h o r e d t o t h e a i l - o f f s t a t e , t h e o t h e r t o a l l - o n . The p o i n t s between t h e s e continuum extremes are s c a l e d with r e f e r e n c e t o the number o f e l e m e n t s common t o e a c h . . ., t h e number o f p o i n t s on any c o m p o s i t e s c a l e b e i n g e q u a l t o t h e number o f i n d e p e n d e n t l y c o n d i t i o n e d SDs, o r CSs, plus one (Weiss, 1969, pp. 2 2 - 2 3 ) .  53  .Responding i s h i g h i f t h e a l l - o n controlling  stimuli)  animal,  low  end  and  when t h e  of the  i f the a i l - o f f  i s presented,  occur  end  levels  middle  ( e . g . , a compound continuum  o f the  continuum  two  i s presented  (no c o n t r o l l i n g  of responding  of  to  stimuli  the  present)  somewhere i n between (§-<_., one  stimulus)  is  presented. Experiment absence of both of  II f i t s  presence  of both  presence  N a C l and  should  summation. The  o f two  result  positive  than  The  o f Group  with  a summation  Group  the  five  1  summation  that  o r two  state,  negative  effect  of e i t h e r  either  with  Intake  be  effect).  The  compound) s u g g e s t e d seguence of s o l u t i o n  the  results  of alone.  test  intake  trial  than  consistency of Because of  this the  t a s t e elements a during the  e l e m e n t s was  o f Group 2  a suppressive  elements  the second  e l e m e n t . The  of the  concurrent  Compound) a r e c o n s i s t e n t  of Compound  expected  state".  s t i m u l u s element  During  of i n t a k e of the  and  f o r a d d i t i v e and  stimulus  f u r t h e r r e d u c t i o n i n compound i n t a k e was  a floor  the  presence  "all-on  argues f o r i t s r e l i a b i l i t y .  would n o t  f o r Group 1.  views  the  (or s u p p r e s s i o n  (NaCl+Saccharin  of i n t a k e of  the  used t o a c c o u n t  interpretation.  degree of s u p p r e s s i o n  trial  be  all-on  presence  of s i x r a t s  i f one  state";  S a c c h a r i n as  1 showed g r e a t e r s u p p r e s s i o n  suppression for  "ail-off  i n greater responding  responding) results  formulation  f o r e x a m p l e , as a p o i n t i n between;  W e i s s * s f o r m u l a t i o n can suppressive  this  s o l u t i o n s as t h e  NaCl o r S a c c h a r i n ,  the  into  first  a t such  low  impossible  levels (i.e.,  (NaCl+Saccharin  summation e f f e c t ,  presentation during  test  testing  but  the  does not  allow  54  for  a final  The  reason(s)  summation are  conclusion.  (Weiss,  that  controlling  summation.  stimuli rats the  tone or the l i g h t .  conditioning  obtaining  since  birth,  aversive  i n t e r v a l or other  summation  was n o t o b t a i n e d .  e s s e n t i a l to the  summation. Van Houten & R u d o l p h  introduced  i t may n o t have been a  discriminative  t a s t e elements.  during  ail-off  sufficiently  suppressive  procedure, could  along  summation  t r a i n i n g and n e v e r  have  e f f e c t s o f t h e absence of  Reasoning  state. If a third  state  procedure.  t h e r a t s had been e x p o s e d t o water  and t h e home c a g e t e s t i n g  poorer  summation  (1971)  1, 2, and 4 water s i g n a l l e d t h e a b s e n c e  elements,  a clear ail-off  clearer  the absence of  the absence of the c o n t r o l l i n g s t i m u l i i n  f o r Groups  any l a r g e  might p r e d i c t of  Additive  c u e . The f a c t t h a t  attenuated the  when  from t h e box i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f e i t h e r  s i m i l a r r e s u l t s with a s u p p r e s s i v e  the aversive  salient  i n which  of reinforcement  i . e . , no i n t e r t r i a l  s i t u a t i o n i s probably  of additive  Although of  (1971) d i d an e x p e r i m e n t  The r a t s n e v e r e x p e r i e n c e d  were e v e n removed  reported  (and p r o b a b l y  s i g n a l i n g t h e n o n - a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t . The  Weiss m a i n t a i n s t h a t the  Weiss  the tone or l i g h t ,  there  t r a i n i n g with the absence o f t h e  signalled availability  presented.  out that  & P e a r , 1968) which  stimuli i s essential for additive  a t o n e and l i g h t separately  1971; Lawson, M a t t i s ,  discrimination  suppressive)  either  t o show an e n h a n c e d  e f f e c t i s n o t c l e a r . Weiss has p o i n t e d  studies  suggest  why Group 3 f a i l e d  novel  l i n e s one  because o f the l a c k taste  followed  would p r e s u m a b l y  these  solution  by s i c k n e s s ,  be e s t a b l i s h e d  was a  and t h u s  55  perhaps  a clearer  3 was an a t t e m p t  d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f s u p p r e s s i v e summationt o produce  Vinegar as " s a f e " group,  of  clear  paradigms.  o r s u p p r e s s i v e summation  u s i n g a tone or a l i g h t  summation close  Emurian  signalled  Weiss's  free  schedule  order to  additive  t o the tone+light combination, a sessions indicates a  i n t h e summation summation e f f e c t  example o f a v e r a g i n g  effect. could  D u r i n g some be s e e n .  c u r v e s o f a l l groups  (Weiss,  1972).  i sa  According to  (1972) model o f s t i m u l u s compounding, a s t i m u l u s  compounded  one r e s p o n s e  tendency  (e-jg. , no r e s p o n d i n g )  with a s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l l i n g  (e. c [ - , r e s p o n d i n g ) presumably  s h o u l d produce  another  o r not t o r e s p o n d ,  tendency  thus r e s u l t i n g  intermediate  amount o f r e s p o n d i n g . A v e r a g i n g  demonstrated  i n traditional  paradigms  8 S t r u b , 1965; W e i s s ,  Averaging  would  response  tendency rate.  a t any g i v e n i n an  has been  by s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s  1967, 1969, 1972; P a v l o v ,  be e v i d e n c e d  when  an i n t e r m e d i a t e r e s p o n s e  i s due t o t h e c o n f l i c t i n g  moment t o r e s p o n d  (Cornell  demonstrated  periods. Although  crossover of the extinction  controlling  This  shock  was d e m o n s t r a t e d  clear  (1972)  avoidance c o n t i n g e n c y , while t h e absence o f  s e s s i o n s no a d d i t i v e  rather  in traditional  shock-avoidance  l o o k a t t h e d a t a o v e r t h e 28 t e s t  The  i n the attainment  p r e s e n t e d i n an i r r e g u l a r  good d e a l o f v a r i a b i l i t y test  & Weiss  summation i n a f r e e o p e r a n t  t o n e and l i g h t  for this  eguivocal.  F o r example,  s i g n a l t h e shock  by p r e s e n t i n g  the r e s u l t s  i s often considerable v a r i a b i l i t y  additive  additive  off-state  during conditioning;  however, were  There  a better  Group  i n taste  aversion  1927).  learning i f  56  a " s a f e " s o l u t i o n were p u t i n compound solution,  and t h e r e s u l t i n g  with  consumption  consumption o f t h e s a f e and the u n s a f e 2-B  show  baseline had  that consumption levels  fall  test  effect  averaging  present  discussed  several occurs  effect.  f o r Coffee,  The  solution. Figures  2-A and  while  Saccharin  would t h e n  not only  Figure  Vinegar,  results  by R a z r a n  Russian  f o r Group 3 2-D  separate  (1965). Razran  2-C, and 2-D results Compound  1-E  NaCl,  shows a this  these.  1-A,  1-B,  the r e s u l t s of  demonstrate t h a t c o n d i t i o n i n g  that  but a l s o t o t h e  t h e compound  the unconditioned  forms a  stimulus.  1-C, and 1-D  ( E x p e r i m e n t I I ) show a s t r i k i n g  A  as w e l l a s p a n e l s  ( E x p e r i m e n t s IA & IB) w i t h  o f t h e two e x p e r i m e n t s .  Figures  2-A,  1  2-B,  d i f f e r e n c e i n the  E x t i n c t i o n o f a v o i d a n c e o f the  i n E x p e r i m e n t s IA and IB was s l o w e r  extinction  relative  to the  of avoidance o f the elements. E x t i n c t i o n of avoidance  t h e Compound  considerable  and e l e m e n t s o f E x p e r i m e n t  overlap.  interpretationillness  describes  t o t h e e l e m e n t s o f a compound,  a s s o c i a t i o n with  2 of Figure  and  b e a r on t h e c o n c e p t o f " c o n f i g u r i n g " ,  experiments that  comparison of Figures  intake  (Group 4) a l s o shows of  to  be p r e d i c t e d t o  ( F i g u r e 2-C)  and t h e compound  compound p.er s e . R a z r a n m a i n t a i n s  of  between  somewhere i n between t h e i n t a k e o f S a c c h a r i n  similar  and  was i n t e r m e d i a t e  trial,  o f t h e Compound  which i t d o e s . The r e s u l t s  as  "unsafe"  o f t h e NaCl s o l u t i o n had r e t u r n e d  by t h e t h i r d  n o t . Consumption  an  I I showed  T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with  When a compound  Razran's  i s specifically  UCS, an a s s o c i a t i o n i s f o r m e d  not only  followed  between t h e  e l e m e n t s and t h e UCS, b u t a l s o between t h e compound T h i s notion i s supported  by t h e r e s u l t s  by an  and t h e UCS.  of Experiment  I A and I B .  57  Consumption o f both but  consumption  suppresseddue  o f t h e Compound  Thus, s u p p r e s s i o n  t o more t h a n  separate  e l e m e n t s had r e t u r n e d t o b a s e l i n e  just  o f Compound  independently  data  o f Experiment  c o n d i t i o n i n g of avoidance  Compound  resulted  Baker  i n much  relative  to the  strength  as a f u n c t i o n o f s p e c i f i c  conditioning.  compound, r e l a t i v e  also  extinction  of avoidance  f o r separate  CS-DCS  (1972) d o e s n o t d e a l  with  element  compound o r e l e m e n t  t o c o n d i t i o n i n g of b e h a v i o r  to the  argued  with  his formulation. Eescorla  (1972, 1973)  t h a t c o n d i t i o n i n g o f a compound o f two  a "unique"  s t i m u l u s element  configural  c o n d i t i o n i n g can occur  reinforcer,  alone,  while  i f a compound  when  suggests  i s f o l l o w e d by a  i t s member e l e m e n t s a r e n o t . The p r o c e d u r e  reinforcement  produces c o n t r o l  after  of  t h e compound, b u t n o t i t s e l e m e n t s  of behavior  by t h e u n i q u e  stimulus  f o r m e d by t h e two e l e m e n t s i n compound. T h i s u n i q u e element accounts  stimuli  that i s not present  s t i m u l u s e l e m e n t s a r e c o n d i t i o n e d s e p a r a t e l y . He  arranging  of  when t h e compound CS i s f o l l o w e d by t h e UCS, does n o t  generates the  I I showed t h a t  However, t h e s t r o n g e r c o n d i t i o n i n g o f b e h a v i o r t o  appear i n c o m p a t i b l e has  fluid  between t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e compound a n d t h e  t o g e t h e r . Weiss  elements  to the  elements-  elements  the  was  o f t h e e l e m e n t s but n o t t h e  more r a p i d  (1969) a l s o h a s a r g u e d  connections  intake  o f t h e s u p p r e s s i o n of i n t a k e o f each  specific  Compound  solution  The Compound _>er s e s u p p r e s s e d  e l e m e n t . The e x t i n c t i o n  the  considerably  the c o n d i t i o n i n g that occurred  t a s t e elements-  consumption  was s t i l l  levels,  f o r a l l of the p o s i t i v e  w h i l e t h e e l e m e n t s become i n h i b i t o r y .  associative  stimulus strenqth  T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with  58  the  position  the  nature of  disagreement reinforcement &  of  both  Razran  configural regarding  (1965) and  conditioning.  the  necessity  in establishing  Hammond, 1 9 7 1 ) .  of  Baker  (1 968)  concerning  However, t h e r e  i s some  differential  configural conditioning  (see  Booth  59  EXPERIMENT I I I COMPOUND CONDITIONING WITH~FAMillAR TASTE ELEMENTS  A taste that i s familiar aversion  c o n d i t i o n i n g than  conditioning the  less  (Kalat & Rozin,  1973)-  inhibition"  to, or less  T h u s , one would e x p e c t  effect  i s similiar to (Lubow,  conditioning  to the familiar  to test  this  likely  a source  1975). By  flavors  salient,  of sickness.  conditioning t o the novel  o f n o v e l and f a m i l i a r  designed  This effect  a t a s t e one p r e s u m a b l y i s making i t a l e s s  well attended  compound  t o a r a t i s more r e s i s t a n t t o  one t h a t i s n o v e l a t t h e t i m e o f  w e l l documented " l a t e n t  preexposing  UMMILlM  AND  element o f a  t o "overshadow"  e l e m e n t . E x p e r i m e n t I I I was  notion.  METHOD  subjects Group  1 consisted of three  generation  crossbreeds.  experiment  i n which t h e y  testing three  between  male and t h r e e  These r a t s were g i v e n  female second  second  had p r e v i o u s l y s e r v e d  i n an  s e v e r a l weeks o f p r e f e r e n c e  t a p w a t e r and 0.9% N a C l .  male and t h r e e  female  Group 2 c o n s i s t e d o f  and t h i r d  generation  crossbreeds.  Procedure Table  4 shows t h e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d  m a j o r phase o f E x p e r i m e n t three 10  I I I . Group 1 s u b j e c t s were e x p o s e d t o  s u c c e s s i v e d a y s o f 10 min a c c e s s  min a c c e s s  t o each group i n each  t o t a p water. T h i s  t o 1.0% NaCl f o l l o w e d by  was f o l l o w e d  by t h r e e  days o f  60  access day  to tap  water o n l y  a compound s o l u t i o n  presented  f o r 10  min,  f o r 10 of  1.0%  min  per  day.  N a C l + 0-25%  followed  by  On ,tfae f o l l o w i n g  Saccharin  a standard  was  injection  of  LiCl.  TABLE 4 Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h g r o u p , s h o w i n g t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e major p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t I I I . Experimental  Group  phase  Conditioning (Solution-LiCl Pairing)  Preexposure  Extinction (Test t r i a l s ) Saccharin  1  NaCl  Saccharin  +  +  NaCl Saccharin  NaCl NaCl (1/2 group) Saccharin (1/2 group)  2  All  rats received  Testing  began on  solutions day  the  min  the  presented s e c o n d day  day.  test  to The  water on  the  on  third,  the  1 with  f o u r t h , and  were p r e s e n t e d . and  c y c l e of t h e  last  three  were p r e e x p o s e d t o  days-  other  One-half a 0.25%  (2 f e m a l e s and  of the  Saccharin  over  test  on  was the  of  (2 m a l e s  solution  1 male) r e c e i v e d  tests  seguences.  to t h a t  group  three  Compound  Saccharin  similar  day.  Saccharin  fifth  The  day,  some e x c e p t i o n s .  half  order  first  1 female) The  following  Compound, N a C l , and  Group 2 s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d t r e a t m e n t Group  the  i n a counterbalanced  Saccharin  to a l l animals f o r each  NaCl NaCl Saccharin  access  c y c l e s . During  Compound and  +  +  NaCl  next  were p r e s e n t e d  testing  only  10  Saccharin Saccharin  10  for days  and 10  61  p r e e x p o s u r e t o a 1-0% N a C l s o l u t i o n - On t h e day f o l l o w i n g t h e preexposure waterto  s o l u t i o n of  injection  solution  Data  of L i C l -  10 min  access  followed  Water was  were p r e s e n t e d  during  each r a t r e c e i v i n g a d i f f e r e n t  given  t h r e e day  order  of  presentation.  Presentation This aspect  and A n a l y s i s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t was s i m i l a r t o  experiments. A repeated intake  received  to  t h e t e s t i n g seguence began. A l l s o l u t i o n s ,  (Compound, N a C l , and S a c c h a r i n ) c y c l e s , with  10 min a c c e s s  1-0% NaCl+0.25% S a c c h a r i n  10 min by a s t a n d a r d  t h e n e x t day- Then  test  received  On t h e f o l l o w i n g day, a l l s u b j e c t s  a compound  within on  period, the subjects  reduction  comparisons  measures t - t e s t  of t h e preexposed  were made w i t h  was u s e d  previous  to assess  s o l u t i o n . A l l other  T u k e y ' s HSD  test.  RESULTS The the  r e s u l t s f o r Group  first  test  conditioning different reduced of  1 are presented  trial,  intake  o f t h e Compound  day w i t h  intake  reductions  subjects  from i n t a k e  from  i t s preconditioning  reductions,  intake  was c o n s i d e r a b l y  greater  was  intake  o f e i t h e r t h e Compound  from  similarly  day. I n t a k e  level  however, were s m a l l .  during  During  between 40% and 99% f o r  o f t h e Compound on c o n d i t i o n i n g  N a C l was a l s o r e d u c e d  3-A.  was r e d u c e d  (g = 7 . 0 9 ) . I n t a k e o f S a c c h a r i n  (t = 2 - 6 4 ) . N a C l i n t a k e  (g  i n Figure  the f i r s t  (g = 10.8) o r  test  NaCl  trial  than  Saccharin  = 1 1 . 0 ) . I n t a k e o f t h e Compound and S a c c h a r i n  d i d not d i f f e r .  62  1  i  i  i  i  i  i  .  B C 1 2 3 4 TRIALS  F i g u r e 3-A- P r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 1. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g and e x p l a n a t i o n o f symbols. The  e x t i n c t i o n curves  Saccharin third be  follow  test  a similar  in five  an o r d e r  effect  f o r a v o i d a n c e o f t h e Compound and course,  of s i x animals.  (relative  intake  This divergence  b e c a u s e t h e Compound  a n i m a l s o n one d a y , and f o l l o w e d Although  diverging only  t h e next  day by  o f t h e compound and S a c c h a r i n  still  was s u p p r e s s e d  could  was p r e s e n t e d  t o c o n d i t i o n i n g day l e v e l s ) a f t e r  consumption  during the easily  to a l l  Saccharin.  were n o t r e d u c e d  the f i r s t  i n some a n i m a l s .  NaCl  test, intake  63  returned of the  to p r e c o n d i t i o n i n g l e v e l s  Compound  intake during  The  and  the  results  second  received  represent  intake  p r e e x p o s u r e . No  by  the  p r e e x p o s u r e . The  statistical  a n a l y s i s was  three  a n i m a l s showed Compound i n t a k e  lesser  approximately animal. for  NaCl  intake  test  reduced  Compound  o f Group  during  levels  3-B  reduced  toxicosis  results  dropped  consistent  o f Group  was  very  clearly  exceeded by  on  o f the  i n every  represent  to  the  animal.  intake  1. Compound i n t a k e  familiar  4  e x t i n c t i o n remained  i n a l l a n i m a l s t o a mean o f  Intake  rapid  ( i . e.,  second t e s t  d i f f e r e n c e s between Compound and  testing.  by  every  1  to b a s e l i n e l e v e l s  intake  open s y m b o l s i n F i g u r e  the  70%.  similar  NaCl i n  s l o w l y ) . NaCl i n t a k e  intake recovered  to  e x t i n c t i o n was  results  animal during  50%  consumption  Compound and  the  pairing a l l  of  by  of  s o l u t i o n , was  Saccharin  during  during  done b e c a u s e  reduced  for  symbols  Saccharin  reductions  was  to the  c o n d i t i o n i n g day  to the  NaCl  the  of  the  a n i m a l s t h a t were p r e e x p o s e d t o N a C l . T h e s e r e s u l t s  similar  during  of the  recovered  trial.  from  The three  that  intake i n every  Saccharin  second  no  twice  to  Data  to  Compound-LiCl  familiar  animal.  which i s c o n t r a r y  Compound ml.  i n t a k e , the  Recovery of consumption  Saccharin  9  solution)  amounts i n e v e r y  3-B.  filled  animals given  number o f s u b j e c t s . F o l l o w i n g  amounts. S a c c h a r i n  Intake  relative  separately according  three  {unfamiliar  reduced  trial.  shown i n F i g u r e  small  NaCl i n t a k e  second  test.  presented during  the  remained  f o r Group 2 a r e  each sub-group are stimulus  Saccharin  by  2.6  are  following ml.  There  Saccharin  s o l u t i o n , NaCl,  were  intake  dropped  \ 2I  I  ..  I  L  I  I  I  B C 1 2 3 4 TRIALS  F i g u r e 3-B. P r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 2.' Data f o r e a c h s u b g r o u p a r e p r e s e n t e d s e p a r a t e l y . F i l l e d symbols c o r r e s p o n d t o s u b j e c t s preexposed t o Saccharin ( H ) • O t h e r f i l l e d s y m b o l s a r e water ( ^ ) , N a C l t h e Compound ( 0 ) « Open symbols c o r r e s p o n d t o s u b j e c t s p r e e x p o s e d t o N a C l (/\) . O t h e r open s y m b o l s a r e water ( Q ) , Saccharin ( Q ) , and t h e Compound See F i g u r e 1-A for abscissa l a b e l i n g . a  n  following exceeded  d  c o n d i t i o n i n g i n e v e r y a n i m a l , but NaCl i n t a k e Compound o r S a c c h a r i n  Summary o f  greatly  intake-  Results  LICL p o i s o n i n g  following presentation  of a novel  taste  65  solution in  i n compound  with  a famililar  a v o i d a n c e o f t h e compound  novel  taste  taste solution will  by t h e r a t b e i n g  result  c o n t r o l l e d by t h e  element-  DISCDSSION T h e s e d a t a show novel  convincingly  that  s o l u t i o n i n compound and c a n r e s p o n d  avoidance b e h a v i o r even separated The relative  from t h a t  brief  Scarborough, 1968;  (Kalat S Rozin;  1963; Revusky & B e d a r f ,  r e s u l t s show t h a t  the  i s part  familiar taste  levels  during  the f i r s t  In l i n e  conditioning  test. This  small  predicted  from  more c o n d i t i o n i n g  preconditioning was no d o u b t  Group  1  subjects  i s t h e l a r g e r amount o f  s o l u t i o n by Group 2 was f o r o n l y  t o the preexposed  (Fenwick, M i k u l k a , & K l e i n ,  Another i n t e r e s t i n g aspect  Brookshire,  1 r a t s showed a  decline  preexposure to NaCl that  with t h i s n o t i o n  &  t h e same e f f e c t o c c u r s when  o f a compound. Group  t o the preexposed  that  1970; V o g e l & C l o d y ,  Because preexposure f o r t h e s e s u b j e c t s relatively  Other  attenuated i t s  1967; W i t t l i n  i n f a m i l i a r solution intake  t o the extensive  received.  extent  1971; M c L a u r i n , F a r l e y , &  1 9 7 2 ) . The p r e s e n t  decline  t o any  s i n g l e s o l u t i o n d e s i g n s have a l s o f o u n d  Domjan, 1972; R e v u s k y & G a r c i a ,  small  appropriate  s o l u t i o n i n e i t h e r group.  p r i o r exposure to a t a s t e stimulus  conditionability  the  compound.  to the unfamiliar using  with  a  when t h e e l e m e n t i s s u b s e g u e n t l y  f a m i l i a r s o l u t i o n was n o t a v o i d e d  researchers  due  t h e r a t can d e t e c t  subjects. 10 d a y s ,  stimulus  would be  1975).  o f these r e s u l t s concerns the  6  amount o f s u p p r e s s i o n suppression  of  S a c c h a r i n i n t a k e - Compare t h e  of Saccharin  i n t a k e i n Experiment IB  w h i c h a l l s u b j e c t s had  one  results  experiment  also  of the  had  one  present  Compound-LiCl p a i r i n g -  groups comparison suggestive solutionintake  o f an In  entirely  IB  Compound; h e r e  IB a v e r a g e d  essentially  zero-  In  5-68  the  only  one  Saccharin present •to t h e  animal  novel  familiar  solution  This effect concerning  is  The  and  from  the  that Saccharin intake i n  Group  1  rats  intake  IB-  The  results an  o f Group 2 o f  novel solution  thus  a novel  the  of  solution  enhances  novel  (1971)  t h e r a t must a t t e n d  solution  to  a decreased  as  notion  both  novel  as p o s s i b l e  amount  of  element of the  free to ignore the  source  enhanced c o n d i t i o n i n g of  the  solution.  o f t a s t e a v e r s i o n s , i h e n two  I f , however, one  the  to c o n d i t i o n i n g to a  another  Revusky's  the r a t i s r e l a t i v e l y novel  of  presence  relative  with  causing  intake  enhancement o f c o n d i t i o n i n g  I t appears t h a t the with  was  1  the  to either.  apparent  differed  Saccharin  experiment  ml.  when i n compound  more t o t h e  Saccharin  i n Group 1 o v e r l a p s w i t h  presented  " s a f e " then  attend  2.67  i n compound  of m a l a i s e ,  conditioning  between  Saccharin  the formation  rats  ml e v e n t h o u g h Compound i n t a k e  i s c o n s i s t e n t with  s o l u t i o n s are sources  A l s o note  a l s o suggest  t o the  novel solution  a  the  solution-  conditioning  such  In f a c t ,  i n Experiment  experiment  the  appropriate, i t i s certainly  intake of  present  S a c c h a r i n i n t a k e averaged of  Although  of  1), i n  1 ) , i n which the  intake of Saccharin  were v e r y s i m i l a r .  Experiment  with  enhancement o f c o n d i t i o n i n g t o t h e  Experiment  of the  Compound  i s not  (Group  Compound-LiCl p a i r i n g , (Group  amount  6  of  compound  i t and malaise.  Saccharin  i n compound  67  with  a familiar solution  Eescorla's Wagner element  to  (1969) r e p o r t s  an e x p e r i m e n t  (tone) o f a compound while  that  element  exposures. tone  Wagner  the tone  that  the novel stimulus  In f a c t  i n which one  i n compound  by  with another that  added  conditioning  was e n h a n c e d r e l a t i v e t o was  nonreinforced  made i t l e s s c o n d i t i o n a b l e .  greater  rats  just  which had n o t had p r i o r  concluded  Wagner and  was n o t f o l l o w e d  i n a g r o u p i n which t h e l i g h t with  conditioning  using  Wagner f o u n d  t h e added e l e m e n t , t h e l i g h t ,  compound  from  conditioning.  stimulus  ( l i g h t ) was r e i n f o r c e d -  conditioning in  predictable  (1972) model o f P a v l o v i a n  reinforcement, element  i s also  Thus, d u r i n g  with another  nonreinforced  exposure t o the compound  element c o n t r o l l e d  d e g r e e t h a n i f compounded  reinforced  behavior t o a  novel  element.  68  JI1I1SJENT IV COMPOUND CONDITIONING WITH FAMILIAR MS JSSIEi TASTES Experiment of  response  IV  averaging  p r e v i o u s l y noted, of  responding,  another the  was  response  found  occurs  put  level,  a systematic  f o l l o w - u p o f the  i n Experiment  with  controls a level controlled  of responding  and  1927;  Strub,  response  R e s c o r l a , 1969;  1965;  averaging  discrepant  stimuli  the  of combining  with  t o x i c o s i s or a s o l u t i o n  put  i n compound  differential  solutions  should  be  presented  to  1972).  b a s i c phenomenon 1969;  Cornell  (1972) a n a l y s i s  controlling  predicts  widely  experiment  averaging was  with  a familiar  specifically  an  to  designed  the to  test  (previously paired  solution  not  paired  e s t a b l i s h e d as " s a f e "  conditioning. If a familiar  i n compound w i t h  compound  (Weiss,  S Black,  an a v e r s i v e s o l u t i o n  toxicosis)  is  level  intermediate  this  phenomenon o f  o f t h e r a t . The  with  through  Weiss'  one  compounded.  IV e x t e n d s  g u s t a t o r y system effects  1967).  when two  r a t e s are  Experiment  the  Weiss,  Redberg  as  controlling  by t h e e l e m e n t s of  suggestion  Averaging,  a stimulus  T h e r e have been numerous d e m o n s t r a t i o n s (Pavlov,  IA.  when a s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l l i n g  i n compound  levels  iSAJJll  aversive solution,  the  (safe)  solution  i n t a k e of  i n t e r m e d i a t e between t h e i n t a k e o f t h e  the  two  separately.  METHOD  Subjects Six r a t s  similar  to those  used  i n Experiment  I I I , Group 1  69  served  as s u b j e c t s .  These  rats  had s e r v e d i n a p r e v i o u s  e x p e r i m e n t a l o n g w i t h t h o s e o f Group 1 i n E x p e r i m e n t I I I .  Procedure T a b l e 5 shows t h e s o l u t i o n s phase  of the experiment.  p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g each  The p r e l i m i n a r y  major  e x p o s u r e t o N a C l and  TABLE 5 Summary o f p r o c e d u r e showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s o f t h e t h r e e major p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t IV. Experimental  Condition  p r e s e n t e d i n each  phase  Conditioning (Solution-LiCl pairing)  Preexposure  NaCl  Extinction (Test t r i a l s ) Saccharin + NaCl NaCl Saccharin  Saccharin-LiCl  Saccharin + NaCl NaCl Saccharin  NaCl-LiCl Saccharin (not p a i r e d )  water  was i d e n t i c a l  conditioning followed  t o Experiment  day, a l l r a t s  by an i n j e c t i o n  were e x p o s e d  0.25% S a c c h a r i n . were e x p o s e d  received  of L i C l .  t o a compound  I I I , Group  10 min a c c e s s t o S a c c h a r i n  On t h e f o l l o w i n g  solution  On t h e n e x t t e s t i n g  t o NaCl,  1. On t h e  the o t h e r h a l f  consisting  day, a l l r a t s  o f 1.0%  NaCl and  day o n e - h a l f o f t h e r a t s to Saccharin.  This  was  70  reversed then  t h e f o l l o w i n g day. T h i s s e q u e n c e  N a C l was dropped Following  were next for  e x t i n c t i o n of avoidance of a l l s o l u t i o n s the r a t s  ( C o n d i t i o n 2) g i v e n  10 min a c c e s s  On t h e f o l l o w i n g day S a c c h a r i n  followed  by 10 min a c c e s s  times  Following  until  NaCl  the l a s t  t o water-  Compound  f o r 10 min f o l l o w e d  T h i s s e q u e n c e was  i n t a k e was s u p p r e s s e d  NaCl-LiCl pairing  occurred  on t h e n e x t  day, f o l l o w e d  Compound,  availability  solution testing the  c y c l e which was r e p e a t e d  last  test  presentation  Data  day. The l a s t  two t e s t  were n o t f o l l o w e d  Presentation This aspect  was t h e n twice  was p r e s e n t e d f o r test  by a day  available.  t o t a p water f o l l o w e d  presentations. Saccharin  repeated  The c r i t i c a l  Saccharin  more. Ten min a c c e s s  by  i n a l l animals-  Saccharin  N a C l a v a i l a b l e and a day w i t h N a C l , and S a c c h a r i n  t o water e a c h day  was a v a i l a b l e f o r 10 min  two d a y s , f o l l o w e d by NaCl f o r two daysthe  t w i c e and  from t h e seguence.  s e v e r a l d a y s . Then N a C l was p r e s e n t e d  LiCl.  four  was r e p e a t e d  once  of these  dropped  with  This c y c l e of  was r e p e a t e d each  test  from t h e  more f o l l o w e d  by N a C l on  s e g u e n c e s and t h e l a s t  by 10 min a c c e s s  with  NaCl  t o t a p water.  and A n a l y s i s of t h e experiment  was s i m i l a r  to previous  experiments.  RESULTS The During  results  the f i r s t  Saccharin  f o r Condition test  1 are presented  i n Figure  c y c l e i n t a k e o f N a C l i n compound  was c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s  than  i n t a k e o f NaCl  4-A.  with  (g =  12.25),  71  with  intake  during  the f i r s t  levels. than  During  test  ranging  from  i n every  test  animal.  Saccharin.  d i d not d i f f e r  Saccharin  intake of Saccharin The  extinction  Saccharin Compound  from  somewhat r e d u c e d  results  first  procedure.  first  test  reduced  data  the f i r s t  showed c l e a r l y  more s l o w l y  animal.  reductions greater test  day  intake  still  relative in only  to i t s three  2 were s i m i l a r  t o those  i n compound w i t h  to intake of Saccharin from  data.  of the  During the  (g = 7 . 8 9 ) .  40% t o 90%. Compound i n t a k e  NaCl i n t a k e  NaCl  A l l a n i m a l s showed g r e a t e r  NaCl i n t a k e  was r e d u c e d  was a l s o  was u n c h a n g e d . S a c c h a r i n  Compound  Compound  t o very  was  Intake  on t h e day f o l l o w i n g t h e f i r s t  t o NaCl i n t a k e on t h e f i r s t  low  c o n d i t i o n i n g day.  than  levels Saccharin  i n t a k e showed no d e c l i n e a t  conditioning or testing.  second  test  presentation  t h e same e f f e c t s  reduced  r a t s on  trial.  of Saccharin  (g = 4 . 1 0 ) .  essentially  of the  cycle intake  ranged  than  that avoidance of  these  anytime during  The  was l e s s  4-B p r e s e n t s  than  consumption  i n five of  Figure  NaCl consumption. relative  test  than avoidance  Saccharin  of C o n d i t i o n  relative  was n o t  on t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g day (g •= 6.38).  second e x t i n c t i o n  The  was more  c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f  i n t a k e on t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g day was r e d u c e d the  preconditioning  However, s i g n i f i c a n c e  intake during  extinguished i n every  from  intake  i n t a k e o f t h e Compound  Compound i n t a k e , a l t h o u g h  animals,  60% t o 87%. N a C l  d i d not d i f f e r  the f i r s t  Saccharin  reached. six  reductions  relative  o f t h e Compound  as t h e f i r s t .  to Saccharin  intake  produced  Compound i n every  intake animal.  was  72  LI  - J  1  I  I  t  L_  B C 1 2 3 4 TRIALS  F i g u r e 4-A. P r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r C o n d i t i o n 1. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e s y m b o l s and a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g .  Compound animal.  intake  was s t i l l  greater  NaCl i n t a k e remained  very  than  NaCl i n t a k e  low. During  r e s t s , c o n s u m p t i o n o f N a C l and t h e Compound  the  i n every remaining  solution increased.  Summary, o f R e s u l t s The r e s u l t s a Compound solution  of C o n d i t i o n  1 clearly  show t h a t c o n s u m p t i o n o f  s o l u t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of a f a m i l i a r  falls  at a level  intermediate  and an a v e r s i v e  between t h e i n t a k e  of the  73  BICCCCB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TRIALS F i g u r e 4-B. D i f f e r e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e i n C o n d i t i o n 2. Note t h e two p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f N a C l i n e x t i n c t i o n b e f o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e o t h e r s o l u t i o n s . See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g and e x p l a n a t i o n o f s y m b o l s . solutions that  presented  "averaging"  s e p a r a t e l y . The r e s u l t s  a l s o occurs  " s a f e " i s compounded  with  of Condition  i f a s o l u t i o n made  an a v e r s i v e s o l u t i o n .  2 show  explicitly  74  DISCUSSION Averaging large  i n taste aversion learning f i t s  body o f r e s e a r c h  cue-consequence  The  that  a flavor  toxicosis. inhibitor  systems  present  interpretation  conducted  with  (e.<_. , W e i s s ,  results  other  preexposure-  safe solution  then  behavior  a  traditional  1972).  The  inhibitory  rat apparently  i s " s a f e " b e c a u s e o f i t s not  f o r avoidance  more  arque f o r a c o n d i t i o n e d  of f l a v o r  The  i n w e l l with  learns  beinq followed  by  becomes a c o n d i t i o n e d when p a i r e d w i t h  an  aversive  solution.  The  present  results  along  I I I conform t o R e s c o r l a ' s regarding  with the  conditioned  inhibitor.  the r e s u l t s  (1969) and  conditioned i n h i b i t i o n .  extensively  inhibitor  with  Hearst's  Hearst  of  (1972)  (1972) has  problems i n v o l v e d i n l a b e l i n g Hearst  Experiment notions dealt a stimulus  (1972) d e f i n e s a c o n d i t i o n e d  as:  A s t i m u l u s t h a t , as a r e s u l t of some p r i o r a s s o c i a t i o n with a decrease i n the p r o b a b i l i t y of r e i n f o r c e m e n t , h a s a c g u i r e d t h e power t o r e s t r a i n o r p r e v e n t a b e h a v i o r a l e f f e c t t h a t would o t h e r w i s e o c c u r (P. 3 4 ) . Hearst  suggests  that there  measuring  conditioned  appear to  be  conditioning possible  the  should  inhibition,  combined cue  tests. be  are  Hearst used  many ways o f  but  the  (summation)  inhibitor.  p r o b l e m s of  interpretation.  and  and  appropriate r e t a r d a t i o n of  e m p h a s i z e s t h a t as many i n d i c e s as  when d e t e r m i n i n g  conditioned  most  detecting  I f only  one  i f a. s t i m u l u s  method i s u s e d t h e r e  is a are  For example, i f a r e t a r d a t i o n o f  a  75  conditioning  procedure  conditioning  (due t o some s p e c i f i c  could  argue t h a t  rather  than  Halgren,  i f the stimulus cues t e s t  is  conditioning history),  has s i m p l y  on one t h a t was s i m p l y  shown t o r e d u c e r e s p o n d i n g  stimulus  conditioned  less  responding  inhibitory  salient,  t h e n i t would  Conversely,  i f a  stimulus one  could  a t t e n t i o n to that  inhibitory  explanation.  cues t e s t  attention  should  to quicker  inhibition  prior  IV, C o n d i t i o n  f o r t h e development  Saccharin  was s p e c i f i c a l l y  was. However, b e f o r e of Condition novelty  Hearst  2 as evidence would  NaCl+novel Saccharin  (enhanced  and a c o n d i t i o n e d  c r i t e r i o n of  a discrete stimulus  of a conditioned  not p a i r e d  with  f o r conditioned  accept  while  would be needed  group  NaCl  the r e s u l t s  inhibition,  N a C l and t h e n a t e s t  compound. T h i s  as being  inhibitor.  sickness,  would c o m p l e t e l y  be r e g u i r e d . A g r o u p  c o n d i t i o n i n g with  was  strengthened.  2 meets H e a r s t ' s  c o n d i t i o n i n g with  necessary  be t e n a b l e  conditioning)  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would be  Experiment  requiring a  t o c o n d i t i o n i n g , t h e n an e n h a n c e d  would no l o n g e r  lead  without  However, i f t h e s t i m u l u s  explanation  received  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would be  c o n t r o l s a c e r t a i n response  attention  for  1971; E e s c o r l a , 1971;  increased  i n t h e combined  shown t o be r e s i s t a n t  specific  salient"  i n a combined c u e s t e s t ,  experience  one  ( E e s c o r l a , 1 9 6 9 ) . T h i s e n h a n c e d a t t e n t i o n would l e a d t o  reduced responding  also  "less  be shown t o r e d u c e  be e x p e c t e d t o d i s r u p t r e s p o n d i n g .  argue that the p r i o r  become  inhibitory could  i s resistant to  i n which t h e s u p p o s e d  i s superimposed  tendency. I f a stimulus not  a stimulus  ( E e i s s S Wagner,  1974). A c o n d i t i o n e d  a combined  stimulus  the stimulus  inhibitory  strengthened in  shows t h a t  a control that  day w i t h  an  was n o t r u n b e c a u s e  76  the  b a s i c concern of Experiment  IV was  However, i t seems l i k e l y  that  Saccharin  be consumed, e s p e c i a l l y  compound  would  very  to demonstrate  known n e o p h o b i c r e a c t i o n t o n o v e l already  been m e n t i o n e d r e g a r d i n g  Condition Hearst's  other  condition The  perhaps c o n d i t i o n e d easily  argue  unpaired  subjects and  aversive  previously  In  the simple  fact  labeled  prior  Hearst  notes that t h i s  any  when  compounded  might a r g u e t h a t  1 and 2 t h a t  criterion  preexposure  "latent inhibition"  this  could  1 and 2  In Condition 1  c o n d i t i o n i n g t o safe  were i n C o n d i t i o n  considers  because  However, one  inhibitor.  differential  UCS.  increased  i . e . , t h a t i n both C o n d i t i o n s  t a s t e s o l u t i o n s as they  himself  without  d i d not occur.  was a c o n d i t i o n e d  mentioned  habituated-stimulus  i s preexposed showed an  t o one of  intake i n both Conditions  the converse,  were n o t g i v e n  neophobia has  s o l u t i o n , Saccharin,  inhibition  flavor  i n view o f the  Saccharin).  t h e p r e e x p o s e d s o l u t i o n , N a C l . One Compound  (this  i . e . , the  1 clearly  of the aversive  of the increased  the  0.25%  c o n t r o l procedures,  of C o n d i t i o n  consumption  tastes  o f the NaCl+novel  procedures which conform  i n which t h e s t i m u l u s  results  with  1 contained  little  averaging.  important,  i s somewhat  of a s t i m u l u s  2. As but he  "cavalier" has o f t e n  (P.27).  been  (see Lubow, 1973, and d i s c u s s i o n  below).  The  above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l o n g  t h e w e l l documented  retardation-of-learning  effect  stimuli  1973; F e n w i c k , M i k u l k a ,  Vogel  (Kalat & Eozin,  & Clody,  with  with  preexposed  1972, as w e l l as E x p e r i m e n t  E x p e r i m e n t s I of t h e p r e s e n t  or " s a f e "  taste  and K l e i n ,  I I I and p a r t s o f  s e r i e s ) s t r o n g l y suggest a  1975;  77  conditioned  inhibitory  Although the r e s u l t s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the present  of Experiments I I I ( l i t t l e  NaCl f o l l o w i n g preexposure)  and C o n d i t i o n  results.  conditioning to  1 of the present  e x p e r i m e n t a r g u e f o r an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e p r e e x p o s e d stimulus  as a c o n d i t i o n e d  available.  One c o u l d  different.  Thus i n c r e a s e d  generalization conditioned decrement the  inhibitor,  other .explanations a r e  a r g u e t h a t t h e Compound s i m p l y consumption  tastes  would be due t o a  d e c r e m e n t and n o t t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f a  inhibitor.  Arguing  against  a generalization  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are the r e s u l t s o f Experiment  Compound  taste  tasted different  with  respect  II.  If  to the t a s t e  e l e m e n t s , t h e n one would n o t p r e d i c t t h e d e g r e e o f a v e r s i o n t o the  Compound e v i d e n c e d  Experiment  I I I (Group  interpretation. Experiment  1) a r g u e  was p a i r e d  the t a s t e of Saccharin,  when p r e s e n t e d  separately  it  with  Kalat Jones, by  Saccharin predict  that  this  that  to a lesser  conclusion.  (Best,  (Siegel,  pairing  1975).  1974; Nachman &  s o l u t i o n not f o l l o w e d  becomes a " s a f e " s o l u t i o n t h r o u g h a s s o c i a t i o n  s a f e conseguences  The  regarding the  inhibitor  a novel  altered  not the case.  support  (1973) as w e l l as o t h e r s  1974) have m a i n t a i n e d  sickness  toxicosisi n  s o l u t i o n exposed t o a r a t (without  t o x i c o s i s ) as a conditioned  S Hozin  with  would be a v o i d e d  T h e r e has r e c e n t l y been some g u e s t i o n of a novel  s u c h an  one would  was c l e a r l y  o f Group 2 ( E x p e r i m e n t I I I )  labeling  the r e s u l t s of  i f NaCl i n compound w i t h  d e g r e e t h a n t h e Compound. T h i s results  Also,  strongly against  t h e Compound  I I I . Thus,  or attenuated Saccharin  Only  i n the r e s u l t s .  with  (no s i c k n e s s ) . Thus, t h e p r e e x p o s e d s o l u t i o n  becomes a c o n d i t i o n e d  inhibitor  o f avoidance of that s o l u t i o n .  78  O t h e r s have t a k e n  a different  view o f  stimulus  Three separate  reports  Halgren,  1974)  have r e c e n t l y shown t h a t p r e e x p o s i n g  leads  a reduction  to  a conditioned supporting  ( R e s c o r l a , 1971;  preexposure.  i n i t s subseguent  inhibitor  of  the  The  an  stimulus  responding, w e l l as  an  there  was  others  that  was  was  stimulus  (white  greater The  o f any  i.e.,  the  great  extent.  preexposed  their  preexposed  rapidly  when  as  the  suppressed  i n t e r f e r e n c e . Rescorla  results  as  support  i n a "reduced  behavioral  for  the  s a l i e n c e " and/or  process.  r e p o r t s of the n o n - i n h i b i t o r y stimulus  with  He  a CS  i s a r e p o r t by  found  Kremer  that pairing  a  by  than the  preexposed  R e s c o r l a had  found  in fact  d i d not perform  compounded  preexposed  with  i n more r a p i d e x t i n c t i o n o f  did a  preexposed  i n t e r p r e t a i o n of the  stimulus  (1972)  f o r shock r e s u l t e d i n  d i s r u p t i o n of responding  Kremer d i d not  stimulus  a CS  i n t e r f e r e n c e of responding  inhibitor.  stimulus.  to condition less  evidence  effect.  noise)  a preexposed  that  above  a r g u e s f o r an  conditioned  result  with  found  (1971)  a retardation-of-  with  no  a summation  stimulus.  stimulus  test  preexposure r e s u l t s  significantly novel  both  compounded  "attention-decrement"  found  either  Rescorla's  Also  f u n c t i o n s of a preexposed who  stimulus  t o a c t as  stimulus.  interpret  Opposed t o t h e  a  1972;  salience)  preexposure.  e x c i t a t o r y or i n h i b i t o r y  preexposed  notion  of  used  a summation  preexposed s t i m u l u s  either  as  and  (£.<_., r e d u c e d  effects  work i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . He conditioning  ability  Wagner,  or a c o n d i t i o n e d e x c i t a t o r , thus  a non-associative  interpretation  Reiss &  the  CS  as  opposite,  d i s r u p t performance to an e x p e r i m e n t t o see  the  conditioned  a  CS  response suppression  any  i f his  would than  79  presentation  of the  However, from one  would  the  conditioned  CS  alone  r e s u l t s of Kreraer's  p r e d i c t more r a p i d  CS+preexposed s t i m u l u s .  even  more " t r a d i t i o n a l "  concept firmly  conditioning  has  recently  claimed,  inhibitor.  The  preference  f o r a s a l i n e s o l u t i o n that  that  solution later  first  part  following  a c c e s s t o an  that  was  this  literature  of that  the  salience" i s  two  solution  followed  received  two  of  aversive  groups of by  not  aversion  a  showed  presented  t e s t . Best  tested  received  immediately  one  the  Next  g r o u p had  then  an  s a l i n e preference  group. Thus, B e s t a r g u e d , preexposed t a s t e  suggest t h a t  this  i f preexposure  t o the  also  to  the water)  results in have shown  non-preexposed  preexposure a c t u a l l y i n t e r f e r e d with  contrary  to  with a " l o s s of  although Best  p r o c e d u r e r e s u l t s i n an  taste  second  second group should  relative  he  ( s a l i n e vs  s o l u t i o n becoming a c o n d i t i o n e d  course i s d i r e c t l y compatible  that  bottle  argued  aversive  f o r s a l i n e compared  i n a two  reasoned  enhanced  s o l u t i o n . Best  inhibition.  that  the  conditioned  a d d i t i o n a l preexposures to s a l i n e . This  inhibition,  but  had  s a l i n e , except  conditioned  of  was  Saccharin  rats that  g r o u p when l a t e r  enhanced  a taste  Best's experiment  g r o u p showed a r e d u c e d p r e f e r e n c e  preference  using  becoming  evidence f o r conditioned  compared  could  compound  preexposure to s a l i n e a c t u a l l y reduces  of  safety  done).  experiment,  Thus i t would a p p e a r  likelihood  This  had  established.  procedure, that  the  the  of preexposure r e s u l t i n g i n " l o s s o f  Best. (1975)  first  compounding  e x t i n c t i o n of  conditioned i n the  (as R e s c o r l a  has  the  inhibitor.  concept of  learned  s a l i e n c e " argument. demonstrated t h a t  enhanced p r e f e r e n c e  One  his  f o r s a l i n e , and  by  80  his  definition  this  does not  after  Saccharin  two  and  reduced  inhibition  followed  access  certainly  in  learned  true  (1973) has to s a l i n e  will  one-bottle  was  preexposed  g r o u p would  would t h e n the  was  Saccharin small  placed  by  in  then  inhibitory  with  saline  access  of s a l i n e -  "  results a  Davenport exposures  preference  for  Best's  c o n d i t i o n s . Thus,  the  preference  declining  inhibitory  preference  p r o p e r t i e s of  c o n t r o l groups,  (twice), then  to s a l i n e ,  It  properties.  group i n  of B e s t ' s  the  saline.  successive  their  group. T h i s  one  of  be  preexposing  procedure.  preexposed  conditioned  In f a c t  solution  preexposed  given  had  Best's  impairment  have a d e c l i n i n g s a l i n e  saline-  followed  intake  saline  the  r e a s o n (s) f o r  However, i t may  an  by  r e t a r d a t i o n of  a taste stimulus  situation,  non-preexposed  preexposed  to  Best's  under s i m i l a r  counteract  preexposed  which  i n enhanced  d e c l i n e . The  to the  due  when r a t s a r e  experiment  relative  clear.  In  s e t out  group t h a t  put  inhibition),  problems with  shown t h a t  as  (aversive Saccharin  properties of the  result  i n the  to i t being  t h a t i t was  (conditioned  are  inhibition  a p p l i e d . The  that i f preexposing  safety  should  prior  a l e s s e r one.  seen i n the  s a l i n e ) i s not  conclude  However, t h e r e  inhibition  saline  from a l s o e s t a b l i s h i n g  (1972), the  were n o t  inhibitor,  (preexposing  although  Wagner  paradigm  inhibitory  is  stimulus  to  and  test,  to s a l i n e  conditioned  conditioned  presentation)  Rescorla  summation  been p r e e x p o s e d  premature t o  a conditioned  procedures  inhibitor,  conditioned  by  as  main t e s t s f o r c o n d i t i o n e d  (1972) and  learning  saline  h i s other  as a c o n d i t i o n e d  the  Hearst  the  preclude  familiar  saline fact  established saline  given  showed an  safe  extremely  81  E3_PERIMENT V OVERSHADOWING'"IN~T&STE COMPOUNDS  Pavlov  (1927, p.  142)  shadowing i n terms of intensities. "blocking," (1968,  the  which has  a n i m a l has  been e x t e n s i v e l y  independently  had  on  specific  the  t h e n one  combined  Kasherininova in  to  elicit  a CR  stronger  rates  due  element,  been s u g g e s t e d  by  sensory but to  one  and  animal. of  has  If  a  another  r e f e r s to not  this  as  been  CSs  of  the  the  i s a function  & Wagner  o c c u r s more g u i c k l y  of  strong  to the  intensities  They  reported failed  even t h o u g h c a p a b l e  overshadowing  masking  while  weaker component  when used as  weak and  Rescorla  differing  procedure.  with  intensities.  intensities,  separately  rather  concerned  differing  compound, t h e  maintains that  of c o n d i t i o n i n g  conditioning  Kamin  element  studies  differing  tactile  behavior  to the  the  "overshadow"  elements of  when p r e s e n t e d  (1969)  principally  has  two  Russian  salivary conditioning  c o n t r o l over  Kamin  by  as  i t "overshadowing".  sounds o f  a f t e r t r a i n i n g to the  gaining  the  two  t o an  prior conditioning  calls  stimulus  combined  a Pavlovian  that  h i s t o r y of  element, then  However, i f t h i s  compounding o f  Zeliony  past  conditioning  R a z r a n '(1965) r e l a t e s two the  stimulus  main d i f f e r e n c e between o v e r s h a d o w i n g  conditionable  demonstrated,  over-  phenomenon known  investigated  which s u b s e g u e n t l y i s shown t o  "blocking".  phenomenon o f  i n t e r a c t i o n s of d i f f e r e n t  appears to c e n t e r  compound  the  Overshadowing i s r e l a t e d t o the  1969). The  blocking  the  discussed  CSs.  only  is  CS.  not  weaker e l e m e n t of t h e  CS  by  different  A similar  (1972). Thus, strong  of  notion  asymptotic  relative  to  82  the  weak CS.  The  weaker CS  o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e UCS,  becomes r e d u n d a n t  and  conditioning  to p r e d i c t i n g  t o i t s t o p s . The  support f o r t h i s  c o n t e n t i o n a r e Kamin's e x p e r i m e n t s  Kamin f o u n d  a compound o f l i g h t  shock  UCS  t h e UCS  that  resulted  was  in control  increased  longer occurred. This approach levels,  mainly  t o 4 ma,  and  overshadowing  to t h e i r  (1969).  of the tone  reasoned,  CSs.  Kamin  ma  However, when no  enhanced  asymptotic  the  conditioning  thus reducing d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o n d i t i o n a b i l i t y  different  main  f o l l o w e d by a 1  by t h e l i g h t .  p r o c e d u r e , i t was  o f b o t h component CSs  tone  the  between  concluded,  The f a c t t h a t l i g h t does n o t overshadow 50 db when an i n t e n s e US i s e m p l o y e d makes i t c l e a r t h a t o v e r shadowing i s not a s i m p l e , d i r e c t , consequence of t h e r e l a t i v e i n t e n s i t i e s of conditioned stimulus elements and seems t o e l i m i n a t e a s i m p l e a t t e n t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a i o n of overshadowing (p.290).  Experiment  V was  of overshadowing  attempt  to investigate  the  phenomenon  i n the c o n t e x t o f simultaneous t a s t e s t i m u l u s  compounds. R e l a t i v e (NaCl and  an  Saccharin)  s t r e n g t h s o f t h e two were  solutions  o f a compound  manipulated.  METHOD  S ub -jects Each three  of four  female  groups  first,  Agoutie crossbreeds.  of r a t s  second,  and  consisted third  o f t h r e e male  and  g e n e r a t i o n Long-Evans-  83  Procedure T a b l e 6 shows t h e s o l u t i o n s major phase of t h e e x p e r i m e n t .  p r e s e n t e d to e a c h  The  procedure  was  group  similar  i n each to  that  TABLE 6 Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h group showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e two m a j o r p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t V.  Experimental  for  phase  Group  Conditioning (Solution-LiCl  1  NaCl+Saccharin  NaCl+Saccharin NaCl Saccharin  2  NaCl-LiCl Saccharin (not p a i r e d )  NaCl+Saccharin NaCl Saccharin  3  NaCl+Saccharin  NaCl+Saccharin NaCl Saccharin  Groups  Saccharin  1 and  concentration. Compound subjects  was  IB, except t h a t  substituted  Following baseline  f o r 10 day,  The  next  min  water  received  10 min  solution  f o l l o w e d by  solution  presentation  the f i r s t  access to e i t h e r 10 min  test  Saccharin  of L i C l .  with  day-  10  Each  a Compound, NaCl  a c c e s s to water.  o v e r t h r e e day  test  the  p r e s e n t e d t o Group 1  f o l l o w e d by an i n j e c t i o n  was  0.35%  presentations,  a l l s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d day  a  f o r the 0.25%  (1.0% NaCl+0.35% S a c c h a r i n ) was  following water-  2 of Experiment  solution  Extinction (Test t r i a l s )  pairing)  The  cycles  On  min  the  access to  subject or a Saccharin seguence was  of  counter-  84  balanced each  as  fluid  i n previous experiments u n t i l were  obtained-  Group 2 was overshadowed Saccharin  used  at the  to  show t h a t a 1.0%  sensory  solution.  level  Following  t h r e e d a y s f o r 10  more days o f were g i v e n LiCl  10  On  LiCl  injections.  Saccharin  the  testing  access  test  presentation 0.35%  was  again The  f o l l o w e d by  was  presented  t h e n i n t h and  Group 3 was solutions, serve  on  as  Saccharin  On  was  reduced  the  e i g h t h day  s e g u e n c e began on  min  10 min  access On  and  The  fifth  test  the  test  by  Saccharin followed  the f o l l o w i n g two  days of  f o u r t h day  c o n s i s t e d of  day test  Saccharin  the  the  of the  "safe"  NaCl s o l u t i o n  Saccharin day. on  The  was  for  again  compound  the e i g h t h  and  day.  same p r o c e d u r e  (overshadowing) 0.15%.  and  consisting  the s i x t h  test  to  first  a v e r s i v e 1.0%  the seventh, final  the  a l l rats  t o water a l w a y s f o l l o w e d  the t h i r d  the  the  on  to  three  followed  on  N a C l on  to  day  presented  administered  stronger  sixth  0.35%  access  were  access  for  a  solution  min  however, were r e v e r s e d . The  the  the  this  NaCl s o l u t i o n  o f a compound s o l u t i o n  On  Saccharin  10  administered.  presented  N a C l on  day.  1.0%  testing  solution  limited  Following  i s not  with  day  solutions.  to e a c h a n i m a l .  again  day.  seventh  presented  test  Saccharin  min  the  to a  s e g u e n c e . Ten  to the  critical  was  per  when i n compound  t o a 0.35%  o f water per  access  g i v e n . N a C l was  day.  10  min  injections.  was by  10 min  min  NaCl s o l u t i o n  s e v e r a l d a y s of  w a t e r t h e s u b j e c t s were e x p o s e d for  s e v e r a l measures f o r  as Group  NaCl s o l u t i o n solution.  The  was  1. now  The to  s t r e n g t h of  85  Data  Presentation  and  Analysis  This  the  experiment  part of  e x p e r i m e n t s . Repeated orthogonal  pre-  and  c o m p a r i s o n s used  was  s i m i l a r to  previous  measure t - t e s t s were used  post-conditioning  T u k e y ' s HSD  only  comparisons.  with  All  other  test.  RESULTS  The clear  r e s u l t s f o r Group  overshadowing e f f e c t  greater  intake of  NaCl i n t a k e intake the in  was  was  every  40%  (g =  animal  intake  of the  intake  was  conditioning  conditioning  day  of  It  than  Saccharin.  was  Saccharin  to intake  7.26).  Saccharin intake  similarly  differences  during  A  showed  (g =  t o c o n d i t i o n i n g day  levels  and  the  Compound  o f Compound  intake  However, b o t h were s t i l l  each  the  second  test  of  reduced between  e x t i n c t i o n . NaCl  of the  Compound on  recovered by  the  the  By  the  to  second  reduced  trial.  s o l u t i o n were w i t h i n  the  relative third  range of  to  trial  baseline  levels.  r e s u l t s f o r Group 2 r a t s a r e  i s obvious that the drastically  seen c l e a r l y  5-A.  animal  or Compound  6.15). T h e r e were no  N a C l on  l e v e l s of  Saccharin  relative  Saccharin  the  water i n t a k e  greater  reduced r e l a t i v e  trial.  The  95$  Every  5 . 1 5 ) . Compound i n t a k e  (g =  extinction  intake  obtained.  in Figure  day.  Intake of  intake  to  Compound and  not  was  presented  NaCl than S a c c h a r i n  a l s o reduced  Compound  1 are  i n every  presence of  presented  i n Figure  N a C l i n compound  reduced  Saccharin  intake.  animal-  NaCl consumption  with  This effect was  5-B.  reduced  was to a  86  I  figure  L_  B  5-A. C o n d i t i o n i n g  1. See F i g u r e  I  1  1  C 1 2 TRIALS  I  3  I  4  and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d  1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g  i n t a k e f o r Group  and e x p l a n a t i o n o f  symbolslow  level  first  LiCl  relative  t o i t s c o n d i t i o n i n g day l e v e l f o l l o w i n g t h e  injection-  days  was w i t h i n  test  confirm  Saccharin  o f t h e Compound  o f 1.0% NaCl i n s o l u t i o n  S a c c h a r i n consumption  N a C l was r e d u c e d t o a mean l e v e l day  on t h e f o l l o w i n g two  p r e i n j e c t i o n r a n g e s . The r e s u l t s  the d e t e c t a b i l i t y  0.35% S a c c h a r i n -  consumption  when i n compound  o f 0.95 ml on t h e f i r s t  and 2.27 ml on t h e s e c o n d day compared  t o a mean  with with test  Saccharin  87  '  '  C Figure  5-B.  intake  f o r Group 2-  explanation intake  of  following  of  the  13-83  ml  the  Saccharin  test  was  average (t = third  conditioning Figure  and  extinction  for abscissa  of  on  the  p r e v i o u s day  test  day,  and  23.92 ml  relative  presentation.  t =  labeling  on  15.6ml on (first  and  the  first  Compound  was  to the  third  0.1  ml  the  an  on  the  compared  conditioning still  day  Compound  7.81). NaCl i n t a k e  i n a l l animals to  33.75). I n t a k e of t h e presentation  fluid  symbols-  suppressed  intake  Saccharin  1-A  3  s e c o n d Compound p r e s e n t a t i o n  vs f i r s t day  i  C 1 2 TRIALS  Differential See  AV  i  reduced  day sixth to  day on  the  post-conditioning  an  88  I 14 Q LU _>  310  CO  z o o  B x  C 1 TRIALS  2  F i g u r e 5-C. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 3. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g and a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f t.he s y m b o l s .  The  results  contradicted  o f Group 3 a r e shown i n F i g u r e  expectations.  i n t a k e was n o t h i g h e r in  accordance  with  test  Overshadowing d i d not occur.  than Saccharin  previous  5-C. The  results NaCl  i n t a k e . Other r e s u l t s  e x p e r i m e n t s . Compound  were  consumption  during  the f i r s t  seguence  was r e d u c e d  from c o n d i t i o n i n g day  intake  (g = 7 . 8 4 ) . NaCl i n t a k e  was r e d u c e d  along  with  Saccharin  (q = 4.77, 4.17; r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . E x t i n c t i o n of a v o i d a n c e essentially  complete  by t h e s e c o n d  test  was  for a l l solutions.  89  Summary. o f R e s u l t s O v e r s h a d o w i n g o f a 1.0% NaCl s o l u t i o n solution  by a 0.35% S a c c h a r i n  o c c u r r e d , a n d was n o t due t o an i n a b i l i t y  d e t e c t t h e NaCl i n s o l u t i o n procedure of overshadowing  with Saccharin. Saccharin  of the r a t t o  The c o n v e r s e  by N a C l  was n o t s u c c e s s f u l .  DISCUSSION The  results  overshadowing  o f Group  1 subjects clearly  i n the gustatory  Group 2 d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t  this  s y s t e m o f t h e r a t . The r e s u l t s o f overshadowing  masking o f t h e NaCl t a s t e . In f a c t Compound  consumption  more a d a p t i v e  i n this  consumption  consumption prudence  situation  (Saccharin),  with the r e s u l t s  stimuli,  i n t a k e of the safe average  compares t h e r e s u l t s  "familiar",  overcompensate  one s i g n a l l i n g  signalling  This  "safe"  "unsafe" f o r  degree than the  interpretation  was n o t a s i m p l e a v e r a g e o f  the unsafe  but r a t h e r a  solution.  demonstration of overshadowing  aspect of the r e s u l t s  o f Group  there i s  1. I f one  o f Experiment I I I with t h e p r e s e n t  i s striking.  would  of Experiment IV. In t h a t  and u n s a f e s o l u t i o n ,  favoring  interesting  similarity  intake.  o f t h e Compound  Besides the c l e a r  the  f o r the r a t t o  and u s e s t h e u n s a f e cue t o a g r e a t e r  experiment intake  another  Apparently i t i s  (NACL). I t i s a s i f t h e r a t e r r s on t h e s i d e o f  be c o n s i s t e n t  weighted  t h e degree o f s u p p r e s s i o n o f  the other  s a f e cue i n d e t e r m i n i n g f l u i d  the  was n o t due t o  was somewhat s u r p r i s i n g .  when p r e s e n t e d w i t h c o n f l i c t i n g for  demonstrated  In E x p e r i m e n t I I I N a C l  and t h e n t h e Compound o f N a C l + n o v e l  results,  was made  Saccharin  was  90  followed intake  by  LiCl-  accounting  T h i s r e s u l t e d i n the f o r most o f  overshadowing experiment increased  with  Experiment solution (due In  similar results-  I I I avoidance  because the  present  familiar  196 9)  only  level  a CS.  of  Saccharin than  intake  the  of the  present  salient  (and  Saccharin  overshadowing  t o an  analyzers) each  called one  B,  the  that  could cue  was  novel  past)-  directed to  As  Kamin  the  (1968,  se  is  conditioning  i n Experiment level  have o c c u r r e d  III  more r a p i d l y due  the  to  the  results  b e c a u s e the  approached i t s asymptotic  more  level  of  i n more s u p p r e s s i o n  of  intake(1971) h a v e a c c o u n t e d  animal,  the  I f stimulus  i f a compound  animal w i l l  A i s highly  conditioning will  occur  hypothesis,"  t o some o t h e r  attend  B in relation  to  (switch  to t h e  salient A and  set of stimuli-  for  stimulus  not  (AB)  in  salience  relative  i . e . , increased  set of s t i m u l i n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t s  attention  was  candidate  s a l i e n c e or n o v e l t y  postulating that  "inverse  the  i n the  NaCl s o l u t i o n . S i m i l a r l y ,  t o e l e m e n t s A and  stimulus.  stimulus  argued  & Mackintosh  by  sickness  behavior  more r a p i d l y , t h u s r e s u l t i n g  Sutherland  likely  however, s a l i e n c e p e r  enhanced  experiment  than NaCl  presented  a less  approach t o asymptotic  be  familiar  more n o v e l )  conditioning  was  by  In  argue t h a t i n  d i r e c t e d to the  approached i t s asymptotic  NaCl b e c a u s e o f an  presence of  I t could  Saccharin  Saccharin  more n o v e l ) c u e .  out,  i n terms of  of  was  avoidance  (and  previously pointed  critical  one  could  been f o l l o w e d  experiment  p r e s u m a b l y more s a l i e n t  One  behavior  of  avoidance behavior-  the c o n c e n t r a t i o n  to i t s never having  the  the  suppression  to  B.  to This i s  attention  i n a decrease i n Overshadowing  of  would  to  is  91  occur  i n the present  because o f t h e high  experiment  according  salience of Saccharin  to this  analysis  relative  t o t h e NaCl  solution.  Eescorla They  suggest  rate,  conditionable  that  point  is  already  variables  t o t h e compound  CS i s f u l l y  conditioned.  member o f a compound  suggesting  the  Conditioning  stops  CS b e c a u s e t h e compound be s a i d t h a t  any  that  increased  CS i n t h e compound. R e s c o r l a  concentration  conditioning  the a s s o c i a t i v e strength  Mackintosh  details.  prediction,  & Wagner  stops  s e e n i n Group 1 by of a solute  levels,  suggested  seen i n r e c e n t  blocking  f o r most  believes  that  a view  somewhat  differing in conditioning  to the  b e c a u s e i t i s r e d u n d a n t t o UCS  n o t b e c a u s e t h e compound i s f u l l y  (Mackintosh's formulation  enhances i t s  accounting  (1972) a l t h o u g h  Mackintosh  stimulus  and  o f t h e compound.  (1975b) has r e c e n t l y  to Eescorla  overshadowed  show up i n t h e l e v e l o f  the overshadowing  approach t o asymptotic  important  another,  i s reached before  I t can then  CS w i l l  t o the other  wagner would e x p l a i n  similar  approach.  which e i t h e r r e d u c e o r e n h a n c e t h e c o n d i t i o n a b i l i t y o f  conditioning  of  than  conditioned.  to the l e s s c o n d i t i o n a b l e  fully  another  e a c h CS-UCS a s s o c i a t i o n grows a t a c e r t a i n  conditioning  at  one  that  (1972) have f o r m a l i z e d  and i f one CS i s more c o n d i t i o n a b l e  asymtotic less  & Wagner  conditioned  accounts f o r the " s u r p r i s e " e f f e c t  e x p e r i m e n t s ; see d i s c u s s i o n of  Experiment V I ) .  Another a  stimulus  more g e n e r a l  might  factor relating  to the conditioning of  be t h e c o n c e p t o f i n t e r f e r e n c e  as posited  by  92  Revusky  ( 1 9 7 1 ) . In a c c o r d a n c e  with t h i s  r e d u c e s t h e number o f p o s s i b l e should  enhance c o n d i t i o n i n g  previously greater  noted  2.6  the  t o 5.68  ml i n E x p e r i m e n t  i s i n compound  be  IB  IB  or t o a s a l i e n c e  b e h a v i o r can  that  depend  be  1). V  1).  i t s level  as  i f a  was Although  previously potential  (due e i t h e r of  p r e s e n t . The  illustrates  this  position.  acguisition  of element  the elements  to  conditioning  control  stimulus  (either  presented  on  the  a line,  They  choice stimuli,  used a  pecking as  either  key  lines  Pecking the stimulus that  had  been  Death  then  the response. A o f both)  or c o l o r s ,  appeared  sample was  on t h e  side  presented  Performance  when a  p r e s e n t e d f o l l o w e d by e l e m e n t s  when e l e m e n t s  use  matched t h e p r e v i o u s l y  compound  than  the  removed. F o l l o w i n g t h i s ,  reinforced.  stimuli  the  established,  s a m p l e s t i m u l u s was sample was  (1973)  matching-to-sample  o r a compound  and  cue  other  i n a compound, b u t r a t h e r  a color  response  a given  they d i d not i n v e s t i g a t e  once s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l  w i t h p i g e o n s ' key  t o which  work o f Maki and  Although  work i s i n s t r u c t i v e .  procedure  t h e degree  a g r e a t d e a l on t h e  cues  keys.  I I I , that  c o n d i t i o n a b l e CS factor)  controlling  their  to  are not e n t i r e l y a p p r o p r i a t e ,  o f Experiment  with a l e s s  DCS  As  (Group  (Group  which  enhanced.  controls  two  CSs.  r e s u l t s a r e a g a i n s u g g e s t i v e . I t would a p p e a r ,  O t h e r s have s u g g e s t e d  of  i n Experiment  between g r o u p s c o m p a r i s o n s  familiarity may  as p r e d i c t o r s o f t h e  of other p o t e n t i a l  I I I than  noted i n the d i s c u s s i o n CS  situation  S a c c h a r i n i n t a k e s u p p r e s s i o n i n Experiment  ml compared  such  any  S a c c h a r i n i n t a k e s u p p r e s s i o n appeared  i n Experiment  Similarly,  CSs  view  was  poorer  as c h o i c e  were p r e s e n t e d a s s a m p l e s  f o l l o w e d by  93  elements.  Maki and L e i t h  concluded,  The d e g r e e o f c o n t r o l e x e r t e d by one e l e m e n t o f a compound i s r e d u c e d when o t h e r e l e m e n t s p r e s e n t i n t h e compound a l s o c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r (p. 3 4 9 ) .  Thus c o n t r o l  by an e l e m e n t  "share or d i v i d e  i t s attention"  Alternately  suggested  exhibiting then  they  strong control  the other element  control  than  analysis (Group  control  with  control  because  attended  1) and I I I  b e h a v i o r was under t h e o f NaCl  because  by N a C l f r o m  tastes  prior  V Saccharin, gained  behavior before NaCl, p r e v e n t i n g d e v e l o p i n g . In Experiment  controlled  avoidance  with t h e r e s u l t  o f c o u r s e , be e x t e n d e d s t i m u l u s elements  behavior  sources of t o x i c o s i s .  f o r a l l of the avoidance  preexposed  IB (Group  had p r e c l u d e d i t as a s t r o n g s o u r c e o f  were p o s s i b l e  t o both  accounted can,  This n o t i o n corresponds t o the  b e h a v i o r . In Experiment  1) b o t h e l e m e n t s  i s not  behavior,  o f i t s enhanced c o n d i t i o n a b i l i t y ,  substantial control  must  correspondingly greater  I I I avoidance  over the avoidance  elements  o f t h e compound  to a c e r t a i n  o f Experiments  NaCl  f o r avoidance  presumably  both  exert  of Saccharin to the e x c l u s i o n  familiarization  (Group  with r e s p e c t  otherwise possible.  of the r e s u l t s  when t h e p i g e o n  between t h e two c u e s .  i f one e l e m e n t  will  1 ) . I n Experiment  control  i s reduced  that  to the r e s u l t s and t h e i r  because  Thus, t h e r a t  neither  behavior. This  IB  taste  interpretation  of c o n d i t i o n i n g  respective  compounds  (Experiment I A ) .  The apparent Group  results  of this  experiment  asymmetry i n o v e r s h a d o w i n g  1 showed c l e a r  overshadowing  suggest  that  t h e r e i s an  w i t h S a c c h a r i n and N a C l . o f NaCl  by S a c c h a r i n .  94  However, f o r Group 3 o v e r s h a d o w i n g obtained-  This  Saccharin  (thus i n c r e a s i n g i t s s u s c e p t i b i l i t y  Kalat  & Rozin,  present there  may  be due  of S a c c h a r i n  1970;  to the higher  Kalat,  i n the r a t s '  1974)  relative  l a b chow, may  sodium  (Krieckhaus,  a p p e t i t e and  1973). T h i s  susceptibility  NaCl was  of n o v e l t y  of  to NaCl, which,  mechanism  not  to conditioning,  make i t l e s s  i s the o f t e n noted b i o l o g i c a l  regarding  degree  by  novel.  being  Also,  operating  i t s innate recognition  might  conceivably  reduce the  o f NaCl i n t a k e t o s u p p r e s s i o n .  s e v e r a l experiments i n the present  series  have  However,  as  demonstrated,  NaCl i s h i g h l y c o n d i t i o n a b l e i n a t a s t e a v e r s i o n procedureKalat  6 Rozin  demonstrated taste  (1973), a s w e l l a s many o t h e r strong aversions  aversions  the  enough  mechanism  concluded  on  s a l t - s e e k i n g behavior  "unmodifiable". need-state (Balagura appetite is  Balagura  does r e s u l t & Smith,  accounting  novelty  or conversely Saccharin.  (Balagura,  e t alj_s. r e s u l t s c l e a r l y  of sodium  NaCl  Brophy,  showed  S  that  a p p e t i t e c a n be o v e r r i d d e n i f  This i s c o n t r a r y t o Frumkin  t h e b a s i s of N a C l - L i C l p o i s o n i n g  that  of sodium-depleted r a t s i s b a s i c a l l y  i n guicker  1 9 7 0 ) . The  be p o i n t e d recovery  possibility  f o r the d i f f i c u l t y  out that  of N a C l  of NaCl because  a  sodium  consumption  o f an i n n a t e  sodium  of g e t t i n g overshadowing  A more p a r s i m o n i o u s e x p l a n a t i o n  because  have  when r a t s were  formalin  However, i t s h o u l d  tenuous at best.  reduced  with  NaCl-LiCl p a i r i n g s occur.  ( 1 9 7 1 ) , who the  or i n j e c t e d  1972).  biological  NaCl s o l u t i o n .  have a l s o p e r s i s t e d e v e n  adrenalectomized Davenport,  t o a 1.0%  researchers,  would  be t h e  o f i t s p r e s e n c e i n the r a t chow  of the high  s a l i e n c e or n o v e l t y  of  95  Revusky and  Saccharin  0.1% It  (1971) u s i n g solution,  Saccharin  almost  to  completely a 2.0%  followed  by  immediate  eight  times  (0.25%).  using  unique  the  up  one  Of to  the  responding  element  of  system-  Saccharin  by  the  s a f e t y " or  factor  (e.<j., s a l i e n c e )  a particular  situation.  Vinegar of  This concentration  is  may  data  be  of  on  a  series  conditioned  I f appears that  difficult  i n some  overshadowing  Baron  (1965) has  effects argued  the  composed  of a white l i n e  a l s o J o h n s o n & Cumming,  made r e g a r d i n g 1A  and  (Group  third  Saccharin  the  overshadowing 1,  test.  Figure  1-A). than  resulted in greater  E e s c o r l a S Wagner  of  for  (1972) a  All  NaCl  I t would a p p e a r  1973)  on  1968).  of Saccharin  " i r r e l e v a n c e " (Kalat & Rozin, to  min  c o n t r o l of  second,  NaCl. According  or  15  u s u a l l y comes under t h e  (see  p r e e x p o s u r e o f N a C l and  for  Vinegar  form.  NaCl i n Experiment  first,  experiment  c o l o r over  r a t s showed a g r e a t e r c o n s u m p t i o n  during  4.5%.  to  a compound s t i m u l u s  be  as  a 3.0%  solution.  asymmetry  gustatory  high  E e v u s k y ' s use  reported  Saccharin  this  Vinegar  experiments of t h i s  taste stimuli  course the  of Coffee  hour l a t e r .  i n most o f  certain  Mention s h o u l d  than  5 ml  or  presented  i s instructive.  t o a 0.7%  a c o l o r e d background  six  to  Coffee  p r e d i s p o s i t i o n i n pigeons to attend  Thus, t h e i r color  used  of  circumstances.  for  solution  that  overshadowing  not  access  solution  as  i n another  1.25%  G a r c i a e t a l . (1974) o n l y  aversions  is  Saccharin  a  of a  i n overshadowing a  solution  t h a t Revusky  Toxicosis followed  Saccharin  difficulty  a Vinegar  overshadowed  by  2.0%  with  note  solution  solution.  reported  solution  i s interesting  sequential presentations  that  "learned  Saccharin stimulus  c o n t r i b u t e s t o amount o f c o n d i t i o n i n g i n If this  factor  i s high  then  greater  96  asymptotic  conditioning will  ( E x p e r i m e n t V) n o v e l than  novel. NaCl-  occur-  Saccharin  T h u s , one would  would  show a g r e a t e r  level  NaCl-  If this  NaCl in  would s u b s e q u e n t l y  compound and f o l l o w e d  what o c c u r r e d Saccharin LiCl  i s true  asymptotic  Saccharin  when  "safe" conditioning  t h e n one would p r e d i c t t h a t Saccharin  by t o x i c o s i s -  Group 2 s u b j e c t s  conditioning.  predict that  overshadow  by N a C l , p r e s u m a b l y  seen  a p p e a r s t o be more c o n d i t i o n a b l e  preexposed than  As we have a l r e a d y  when b o t h  a r e put  This i s i n fact  exactly  d i d n o t show o v e r s h a d o w i n g of  because o f t h e i r  prior  Saccharin-  97  JXPEEIMENT VI BLOCKING,: CONDITIONING TO THE ELEMENTS OF A COMPOUND 2ASTE STIMULUS AFTER PRIOR CONDITIONING TO ONE ELEMENT _  Kamin  (1968,  "blocking" an  1969) d i d t h e f i r s t  effect.  The b a s i c  animal t o respond  ( w h i c h may Following set  a r e added  These e x t r a  of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  to the e a r l i e r  with  1968; M i l e s  has a l s o  (Tennant  & Bitterman,  suppression  & Jenkins,  the taste aversion  can  be o b t a i n e d ,  not  occur.  l e s s than i n  phenomenon. O t h e r s 1965; W i l l i a m s ,  (Johnson &  1975) have  efforts  (Revusky,  to demonstrate the b l o c k i n g  and R o z i n  The e x p e r i m e n t s d i f f e r  fashion  argue t h a t  i n several  Revusky f o l l o w e d  with another  " s e q u e n t i a l " ompound  carp  with  1971; K a l a t  procedure. Revusky c l a i m s  while Kalat  i s that  i n g o l d f i s h and  that  before  Kalat  effect blocking does  obvious  conditioned pairing i t in a  s o l u t i o n and f o l l o w i n g  illness.  &  blocking  ways. One  his first  w i t h t o x i c o s i s on two o c c a s i o n s  successive  o f an  1975).  1972) have a t t e m p t e d  solution  s e t , f o r m i n g a compound.  p a r a d i g m , h a s p r o v e n t o be a  been d e m o n s t r a t e d  Two d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h  difference  another  t h e e f f e c t w i t h p i g e o n s i n an a p p e t i t i v e s i t u a t i o n .  Blocking  using  performance,  t h e compound. Kamin's work, done with  and d e p e n d a b l e b e h a v i o r a l  demonstrated  conditions  stimulus).  t r a i n i n g w i t h t h e compound, i s u s u a l l y  and a c o n d i t i o n e d  Rozin,  t o two s t i m u l u s  training  by t h e added r e d u n d a n t e l e m e n t , even a f t e r  animals t r a i n e d only  Cumming,  first  cues a r e n e c e s s a r i l y redundant. C o n t r o l  animal's responding  robust  involved  work on t h e  j u s t be t h e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f a  o f cues  rats  procedure  differentially  some c r i t e r i o n  prolonged  systematic  and R o z i n  this  injected  98  their  a n i m a l s once f o l l o w i n g  pairing  i t with the  sickness.  intake  Revusky's  cue,  procedure should  then c o n d i t i o n i n g  Experiment as  VI  was  i t r e l a t e s to the  major d i f f e r e n c e s the  present  a compound i s the  stimulus  c o n t r o l . Both  elements of  then  s o l u t i o n B,  The obtain of  Experiment  followed  by  IB  t o the  usual  the  The  Revusky, and  several (i.e.,  the  retarded.  phenomenon rat.  The  experiments first,  and  the  subjects mixed  Kalat  and  Rozin  stimuli serially,  together of  to  the  presented  i.e., solution A  sickness.  third  first  two  g r o u p was  where a compound o f This  was  g r o u p s were a t t e m p t s  c f Group  two  solution f i r s t  t i m e s beyond t h e  novel  in a blocking  that  was  the  could  and  procedure  be  non-  similar  taste solutions  used  s i m i l a r procedures except  that  conditioned  was  number n e c e s s a r y  t h e s e r a t s were o v e r t r a i n e d  flavors  a comparison  exposed t o a  1 except  to  essentially a replication  done so t h a t  p r o c e d u r e . Group 4 was  taste  As  p r o c e d u r e f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g compound  were p r e e x p o s e d . Group 5 r e c e i v e d the  be  the  Rozin a r e :  primarily a within  compound  then  illness.  procedure  of  s e r i e s of  by effect.  blocking  system  made between t a s t e e l e m e n t s u p p r e s s i o n blocking  the  before  advanced t o  will  s e p a r a t e s o l u t i o n s are  procedures f o r the  blocking.  well  s o l u t i o n . Simultaneous presentation  elements  the  and  both  a blocking  added cue  present  Revusky, K a l a t  p r o c e d u r e . Second, the form  favor  gustatory-malaise  solution  following  done t o e l a b o r a t e  experiments u t i l i z e  first  i s already  to the  between t h e  experiments of  the  s e c o n d s o l u t i o n and  Kamin s u g g e s t e d , i f c o n d i t i o n i n g first  of  paired for  with the  with t o x i c o s i s  100%  first  suppression t a s t e ) . Group  99  6  received  the  basic  were r e d u c e d t o as  well  as  the  blocking  approximately  the  the  1/8  dose f o r t h e  of  the  several  compounding o f  the  aversive  to-be-added  added  s o l u t i o n both  preexposed  compounded  and  introduced  when b l o c k i n g  The  procedure  conditioning such  as  first  to the  & 7),  LiCl  by  G r o u p s 4-7  not  obtained  with  4-7  was  designed  to obtain  t a s t e e l e m e n t by  increasing  (Group 5)  Groups  various  of the  and with  added  to  the to  the  were were 1 or  2.  manipulations stimulus  level  of  to a point  where  little  should  of  less  the  added s t i m u l u s  pre-  preexposure  solutions  times-  conditionability  or  to the  five  to  conditioning  blocking  doses  element  was  added  the  stimulus  conditioning  by  f o r groups  reducing  (Groups 4,6, the  followed  and  taste  extensive  s o l u t i o n . Then f o l l o w i n g  LiCl  phase. T h i s ,  i n j e c t i o n s both p r i o r  added t a s t e e l e m e n t . Group 7 r e c e i v e d the  usual  post-compounding c o n d i t i o n i n g  course, necessitated following  procedure except  conditioning  of  occur.  METHOD  Subjects  Seven g r o u p s o f and  third  generation  rats,  3 male and  crossbreeds  per  3 female  first,  group, s e r v e d  as  second, subjects.  Procedure T a b l e 7 shows t h e of  the  to  10  all  taste  solutions  e x p e r i m e n t . A l l Group 1 s u b j e c t s min  water p e r  subjects  day  for several  were p r e s e n t e d  with  10  used i n e a c h received  d a y s . On min  the  access  major  baseline  phase access  following  to the  first  day  100  taste  s t i m u l u s , a 0,25%  t e r m i n a t i o n of access the  standard  given  10  min  received 0.25%  10  min  water  to  This  presented, min  per  one  day  repeated  of L i C l . the  On next  Saccharin  followed  day  by  N a C l was  Saccharin. with  first  NaCl was  a l l subjects  was  the  of  followed  1.0%  NaCl  within  10  f o l l o w i n g day  t h r e e days the The  access  10  test  and min  min  by  access  c y c l e of  s o l u t i o n s were  over  a l l rats,  for  10  t o water. T h i s c y c l e  was  stimulus  then  identical  paired with  compounded  with  LiCl  manner rather  Saccharin  and  except than  followed  LiCl,  subjects there Saccharin  a c o n t r o l f o r Groups  was  pairing  no  limited  with  LiCl).  Following  (as i n E x p e r i m e n t  to approximately  approximately  equal  water a l o n e  test  the  Saccharin  plus  (prior  NaCl  paired  with  these NaCl  was  or  2.  days  followed  by  Compound  t o keep amount  was  consumed  Following  a  day  began.  preexposure to  both  c o n d i t i o n i n g phase b e g a n . F o l l o w i n g was  For  IB). Access to the  2 rain i n o r d e r  trials  2.  several baseline  t o t h a t o f G r o u p s 1 and  Group 4 r e c e i v e d one before  1 and  p r e c o n d i t i o n i n g phase  water t h e Compound o f S a c c h a r i n  t o x i c o s i s once  with  the  times.  the  Group 3 was  with  day  solution  Group 2 s u b j e c t s were t r e a t e d i n an that  of  were  occurred.  min  min  following a l l subjects  counterbalanced TO  10  with  the next  presentation  e a c h day,  several  the  Within  a l l r a t s were i n j e c t e d  t o a Compound  g i v e n . Over  Compound, N a C l , and  solution-  Saccharin  w a t e r . On  access  injection  was  to  d o s e . On  access  Saccharin.  a standard to  LiCl  Saccharin  LiCl  twice,  then  put  N a C l and this  Saccharin  preexposure  i n compound  with  TABLE 7 Summary o f p r o c e d u r e f o r e a c h g r o u p , p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h o f t h e t h r e e major  Experimental  Group  Preexposure  Saccharin NaCl  showing t a s t e s o l u t i o n s p h a s e s o f E x p e r i m e n t VI-  phase  First condit i o n i n g phase (Solution-LiCl pairing)  Second c o n d i t i o n i n g phase (Solution-LiCl pairing)  Saccharin  Saccharin + NaCl  Saccharin + NaCl NaCl Saccharin  NaCl  Saccharin + NaCl  Saccharin + NaCl NaCl Saccharin  Saccharin + NaCl  Saccharin + NaCl NaCl Saccharin  Saccharin + NaCl  Saccharin + NaCl NaCl Saccharin  Saccharin  Saccharin  Saccharin  NaCl (1/2 group) Saccharin (1/2 group)  101  Saccharin (1/2 g r o u p ) NaCl (1/2 group)  Saccharin + NaCl  Extinction Test-trials  Saccharin + NaCl NaCl Saccharin Vinegar  Saccharin + NaCl  Saccharin + NaCl Saccharin NaCl  Saccharin +  Saccharin + NaCl Saccharin NaCl Vinegar  Naci  102  N a C l and f o l l o w e d previous  once by L i C l .  Saccharin  once.  directly This  Besides testing, any  of Saccharin  t o be v e r y  into  limited,  t h e mouth o f e a c h  procedure  (a of  of  a 2-5% V i n e g a r  solution  LiCl  d o s e was r e d u c e d  being  presented  during  to assess  t o Group 1 e x c e p t  that the  2.0% t o 0.25% o f body  LiCl  taste  f o r these  dose).  Because of the l a c k  (Saccharin)  subjects  weight  i n three  female  was i n c r e a s e d t o 0.5%  weight.  One s u b g r o u p was p r e e x p o s e d  two s u b g r o u p s o f t h r e e r a t s e a c h .  t o NaCl f o r 20 d a y s . The o t h e r  was p r e e x p o s e d t o S a c c h a r i n  NaCl p r e e x p o s e d  while  injected  Saccharin-LiCl  was a l s o p r e s e n t e d  from  Group 7 was d i v i d e d i n t o  the  was  neophobic r e a c t i o n s .  t h e dose o f L i C l  subgroup  except  c o n d i t i o n i n g day  5 ml o f S a c c h a r i n  and t h e Compound  conditioning to the f i r s t  body  1  instead o f only  r a t on t h e t h i r d  r e d u c t i o n t o 1/8 t h e o r i g i n a l  rats,  LiCl  on i t s t h i r d  Group 6 was t r e a t e d s i m i l a r l y initial  with  o f Group  was a l s o f o l l o w e d on t h e C o m p o u n d - L i C l day.  NaCl, S a c c h a r i n ,  general  a replication  was p a i r e d t h r e e t i m e s  Because i n t a k e  was e x p e c t e d  day.  out as i n  groups-  Group 5 was e s s e n t i a l l y that  T e s t i n g was c a r r i e d  the Saccharin  pairing-  A day w i t h  received  five  f o r 20 d a y s . F o l l o w i n g  r a t s r e c e i v e d one S a c c h a r i n - L i C l p a i r i n g , preexposed  r a t s r e c e i v e d one N a C l - L i C l  water i n t e r v e n e d ,  Compound  and t h e n  (NaCl+Saccharin)-LiCl  both  subgroups  p a i r i n g s with  interspersed  between c o n d i t i o n i n g d a y s . F o l l o w i n g t h e  conditioning  sequence t h e normal t e s t i n g  that  2.5% V i n e g a r  a novel  this  solution  procedure  was p r e s e n t e d  began,  water  except  during the  103  first  Data  test  cycle.  Presentation This aspect  performed tests  and  analysis  of the experiment  i n previous  with  was  similar  experiments except that  n1+n2-2 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m  to the a n a l y s i s between g r o u p s t  were a l s o  used.  RESULTS  The 6-B.  results  Blocking  was  Subjects  i n both  solution  added  Figure  6-A  was  Saccharin  test  four  test  Compound for  The  to conditioning  (first  extinction tests following  remained  of the t e s t i n g  test.  remained  Saccharin  i t s i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n i n g day day,  Basically  to i n i t i a l  f o r two  intake  intake for  I n t a k e of the  Saccharin  intake  seguence.  never d i f f e r e d Compound  g = 15.24).  one  appreciable  I n t a k e o f NaCl  day, g = 1 5 . 4 8 ) .  reduced r e l a t i v e  extinction tests. the t h i r d  solution).  (first  one  day  S a c c h a r i n - L i C l c o n d i t i o n i n g day  presentations  the duration  after  15-58).  o f N a C l (added  from  taste  Saccharin+NaCl  p a i r i n g showed no e v i d e n c e o f any  Compound i n t a k e the  of the  level relative  (g =  reduced  2.  f o r Group 1. F o l l o w i n g  p a i r i n g consumption  presentations  1 or  6- A and  preconditioning.  from t h e f i r s t  remained  2 a r e shown i n F i g u r e s  showed l i t t l e i n t a k e o f t h e  shows t h e r e s u l t s  levels  consumption reduced  groups  a t a low  Compound-LiCl  1 and  not e v i d e n c e d i n e i t h e r Groups  after  Saccharin-LiCl Compound  f o r Groups  from  intake  Saccharin  differed  t h e same t h i n g  from  intake NaCl  occurred  during intake  between  104  • 6  14 Q UJ  310 CO  z o o  6  B  C  C 1 2 TRIALS  3  4  5  F i g u r e 6-A, C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 1. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g and an e x p l a n a t i o n of the symbols. Saccharin  and  NaCl  intake.  Group 2 r e s u l t s a r e shown i n F i g u r e solution Saccharin intake of  was  avoided  intake  remained  until  reduced  from  A g a i n t h e added  r a n g e d between 0.1  lower than i n i t i a l  o f NaCl f o r t h e d u r a t i o n  NaCl remained  intake  (consumption  6-B.  and  conditioning  of the e x t i n c t i o n t e s t .  its initial  3 ml),  conditioning  the f o u r t h e x t i n c t i o n p r e s e n t a t i o n .  day  Intake day  During each  105  test  there  were no d i f f e r e n c e s between  intakes  of the  different  solutions-  C  C 1 2 TRIALS  F i g u r e 6-B. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 2. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g and the symbols.  Figure of  6-C  similarity  Experiment  shows t h e r e s u l t s  between t h i s  f o r Group 3.  f i g u r e and F i g u r e  I B . Of main i n t e r e s t  regarding  Note t h e d e g r e e  1-E  (panel 1),  Group 3 r a t s i s t h e i r  106  intake  of  N a C l and  Saccharin  compared t o Group  Comparing  the  intake  {NaCl was  the  added s o l u t i o n )  than  Group  second  1  (t =  (t =  presentation (in  and  described  (e. £ . , E x p e r i m e n t  higher  than the  Figure  6-D  intake. all  trial  higher  the  (t = 3 . 1 5 ) . Group 2 intake  than  the  added s o l u t i o n , trial  more  d i d not  f o r the intake  first  of Group 2  t = 2-63).  differ  Saccharin  between  f o r G r o u p 3 were i n c l o s e  test  groups.  correspondance nature  IB). intake  intake  was  NaCl i n t a k e  test  o f Group 1  Group 3 consumed  of  of the the  added  first  solution  significantly was  greater  remaining  (NaCl)  ( s o l u t i o n ) as  (g = 4 . 4 4 ) . N a C l i n t a k e d u r i n g tests  that  rats-  i n p r i v i o u s e x p e r i m e n t s of a s i m i l a r  Group 4 r a t s '  subseguent  test  the  test  results  shows t h a t  Mean S a c c h a r i n  was  second  other  those  third  3 with  2  difference p e r s i s t s during  f o r Group 3 was  f o r the  The  This  results.  which S a c c h a r i n  intake  to  3.0)-  5.17)  showed s i m i l a r  o f N a C l f o r Group  1 and  greater  the  shown i n  second  than  The  results  f o r Group 5 a r e  and  Saccharin  than i n t a k e of the  trials.  was  Compound f o r  comparisons confirmed  previous  results.  The readily  apparent  reduced  i n amounts c o m p a r a b l e t o  NaCl+Saccharin. of Saccharin tests.  By  the  was  NaCl  intake  intake  reduced  fourth  preconditioning confirmation  that  test  Saccharin  of the  presented  of the  added  Saccharin  compared  during  the  reduced  solution and  the  first  (g =  It i s  (NaCl)  was  Compound  12.2 8)  of  intake  and  second  exceeded  i n a l l a n i m a l s but  intake  6-E.  to preconditioning  NaCl i n t a k e f a r intake  in Figure  one.  o f N a C l comes f r o m  Further  comparing  107  B  C 1 2 TRIALS  ;  3  4  5  F i g u r e 6-C. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 3- See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g and an e x p l a n a t i o n of the - symbols.  NaCl As  with  Saccharin  Figure  animals. often  6-E  clearly  comparable  to the  intakes during  NaCl i n t a k e  i t s intake  to that of  conditioning  Compound  shows, i n t a k e  Thus, a l t h o u g h  occurred,  pairing.  and  the  was  almost  recovered  reduced  other  Saccharin  was  the zero  first in a l l  faster,  initially  to  as  to  has  levels  taste solutions despite  solution prior  test.  complete  Compound-LiCl  108  IT  TRIALS Figure  6-D.  intake  f o r Group 4.  abscissa  Preexposure,  labeling  Intake  of  differ  compared  either  the  than  1-A  f o r an  explanation  during  still  intake  of  symbolsthe  or s e c o n d  Other r e s u l t s Saccharin  Figure  extinction fluid  c o n t r o l f o r neophobia,  to preconditioning Saccharin  first  was  and  Vinegar,  NaCl i n t a k e  difference  See  c o n d i t i o n i n g , and  the  tests. first  large during  were c o m p a r a b l e  dropped  Vinegar test the  did  intake  intake  was  (g = 1 0 . 8 9 ) . second  test  to previous  not  during greater This  trial.  experiments.  d r a m a t i c a l l y f o l l o w i n g the  first  LiCl  109 A  B C C C C  1 2 3 4 5  TRIALS Figure  6-E. C o n d i t i o n i n g  5- See F i g u r e the  and e x t i n c t i o n  1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g  fluid  intake  f o r Group  and a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f  symbols-  injection  and r e m a i n e d e x t r e m e l y  conditioning also  remained reduced  Saccharin testing. reduced tests  extinction  test  low f o r t h e f i v e  seguences. Intake  f o r the duration  Both i n t a k e compared  (g = 10.94,  of Saccharin  to Vinegar  intake  o f t h e Compound  of testing.  a n d t h e Compound n e v e r d i f f e r e d  post-  Intake  appreciably  and o f t h e Compound during  10. 98; r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  the f i r s t  of  during were  and s e c o n d  110  Figure  6-F  shows t h e  s l o w c o n d i t i o n i n g i n the conditioning shown. The the  added  intake  trials,  data  r e s u l t s o f Group 6. females,  only  o f main  the  which n e c e s s i t a t e d  first  was  low  (4.0  i n t e r e s t are  ml).  the  However, t h i s  when compared t o t h e  conditioning  day.  reduction  reason  for this i s that  female)  showed  NaCl i n t a k e s  while  f e m a l e r a t s showed i n t a k e s  of  of  13  0.1  ml  effect  certainly  no  occurred  i n the remaining  the  test  intake  or  trial  Saccharin  significantly  as  test  greater  trial,  the and  NaCl i n t a k e  t o Compound o r  t h a n Compound o r  the  to  10  two  (three 1.0  ml.  ml  Thus,  females,  subjects.  differ was,  test  as  from  but  During  Compound  however,  trial,  began  fourth test  Saccharin  a l l solution gradually  i t d i d i n Group  Saccharin  intake  to diverge  trial  intake  O t h e r r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r t o t h a t Intake of  not  intake.  to i n c r e a s e  second by  i n these  d i d not  Vinegar  continued  compared  unchanged d u r i n g third  intake.  lower than  NaCl i n t a k e NaCl i n t a k e  NaCl i n t a k e  of  NaCl  rats  ml  and  blocking  first  that  four  argue f o r a blocking  in intake  Saccharin-LiCl  The  one  could  extended  d i f f e r e n c e was  first  m a l e s and two  the  Saccharin-LiCl pairing i s  s o l u t i o n , NaCl. I t i s r e a d i l y apparent  significant  one  Because of  1.  remained on  was  clearly  i n every  animal.  of  previous  increased  the  experiments.  over e x t i n c t i o n  trials.  It unpaired  i s important  intake  of Vinegar,  t a s t e s o l u t i o n , remained r e l a t i v e l y  Group 5 r a t s . first  to note t h a t  test,  Average  which  was  intake  of  Vinegar  considerably  was  higher  high 11.8  the  as ml  novel-  i t did during  than intake  o f any  in the of  111  B  C 1 2 i TRIALS  3  4  5  F i g u r e 6-F. C o n d i t i o n i n g and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 6- See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g and a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f the symbols. the  other  The  solutions.  data  facilitate five  f o r b o t h s u b g r o u p s o f Group 7 s e r e combined t o  presentation.  Figure  6-G  clearly  shows t h a t  Compound-LiCl p a i r i n g s the s o l u t i o n t h a t  a d d e d t o t h e Compound extensive  was  following  subseguently  a s t h e s e c o n d s o l u t i o n was a v o i d e d  d e g r e e by a l l r a t s .  A l s o n o t e t h e l a c k o f any  t o an  112  substantial  intake suppression  to the novel  Vinegar  solution-  14 Q UJ  310  CO  o o _l  ^  6  B  C  C 1 2 i. TRIALS 5  F i g u r e 6-G. P r e e x p o s u r e , c o n d i t i o n i n g , and e x t i n c t i o n f l u i d i n t a k e f o r Group 7. See F i g u r e 1-A f o r a b s c i s s a l a b e l i n g . F i l l e d s y m b o l s c o r r e s p o n d t o water ( ) . p r e e x p o s e d s o l u t i o n s u b s e g u e n t l y added t o Compound ( ^ ^ ) , f i r s t c o n d i t i o n e d s o l u t i o n ^ Compound ( £ ) . U n f i l l e d s y m b o l s show water i n t a k e f o r c o r r e s p o n d i n g f i l l e d symbols. a n  113  Summary, o f It  Results  i s clear  that c o n d i t i o n i n g to a novel or  o c c u r s even  when i n compound  contifioned  CS-  similar paired  Intake  with  suppression  to s u p p r e s s i o n obtained with  greatly  LiCl-  reduced  an  Intake  compared  familiar  already strongly  to the  added s t i m u l u s i s  when t h e s t i m u l u s a l o n e  of a novel  taste  unpaired  solution  t o t h e compound and  the  is  i s not  elements.  DISCUSSION  Evidence occur  for blocking i n taste  i f a novel  established  solution,  aversive solution  rendered  l e s s a v e r s i v e than  solution  (no p r i o r  results  of G r o u p s  i n Group  either  rapid  on  and  not  show t h e  avoidanceavoidance rather  to the  If, Wagner  toxicosis.  2 d i d not  show s u c h  that avoidance  Compound-  over  test  rapid  1 was  choice  of  The  due  as  results  t o any  The  effect.  solution,  (1971) d a t a  trial  rapid  novel  avoidance  of showed  w e l l as  of Group  more 2,  ( t h e added s o l u t i o n )  characteristic  t h a t the  not  added  than  of S a c c h a r i n  extinction  appears  test  trials-  a blocking  of the  Revusky's  extinction  of  extinction  NaCl of  NaCl  blocking effect,  but  solutions.  a c c o r d i n g t o Kamin (1972),  was  f o l l o w e d by  or the  i n Group  toxicosis,  c o n d i t i o n i n g ) and 1 and  I t thus  already  with a  however, showed t h a t a v o i d a n c e did  an  i n compound  the i n i t i a l  extinction  with  f o l l o w e d by  1 e x t i n g u i s h e d much f a s t e r  Saccharin  blocking  i n compound  would  when put  However, i t i s o b v i o u s NaCl,  put  aversion learning  (1969) as w e l l as R e s c o r l a  c o n d i t i o n i n g i s w e l l advanced  when a  and  redundant  114  stimulus  i s put  occur to  the  shown t h a t avoidance  i n compound, t h e n l i t t l e  added r e d u n d a n t  a single of  the  stimulus.  paired'solutionat  when t h e  single  stimulus i s simply  Group  i f one  i n greater to  the  Compound and  element  in  difference  its  intakes.  and  of 1B  between i n t a k e  (1969) as  well  something i s l e a r n e d first  presentation  showed, i f a compound considerable  Groups  the  Compound  there  was  for  the  as  Mackintosh  degree  than  1 and  2  with to  subsequently  substantial a comparison  of  added s o l u t i o n s  i n Groups  generally  of  added  a c t u a l l y appeared  of the  a  Compound and  conditioning taste  on  taste  animal  t h i s one  should  be  suppression  of  added  1 and  comparable  2 was  followed  by  comparison  the  toxicosis of  the  about the  1 and  2,  did  while,  substantial its  respective  has  indicated  E x p e r i m e n t s IA  i s followed  occurs to  the  by  compound t r i a l , In  solution  taste  (Experiment  suppression  of  (NaCl o r  added  upon  IB  elements.  degree  of  Saccharin)  of  Groups  was  i s confirmed taste  the  of  a single solution  I I ) . This the  and  some a v o i d a n c e o f  f a c t the  when o n l y  least  toxicosis  j u s t shows a n o r m a l i n c r e m e n t  apparent.  to  (1975)  added s t i m u l u s a t  i n compound. As  conditioning  T h e r e f o r e , i f the  added  Intake  substantial  toxicosis.  redundant t a s t e  support  have  elements.  Kamin that  1A  by  added e l e m e n t comes f r o m  from i n t a k e  Experiments  taste  the  taste  the  a lesser  r e s u l t s of  the  Compound. F u r t h e r  to  followed  w i t h one  avoidance of  of  differ  conditioned  compares t h e  conditioning  not  be  3 prior conditioning  result added  least  results in  Avoidance of  should  should  Previous experiments  solution-LiCl pairing  solution  Suprisingly,  conditioning  by  solutions  a in  115  Groups  1 and  2 with the  G r o u p 3 where no cases there  was  suppression  prior conditioning a greater  than  when o n l y  with  prior conditioning  appears that  the  conditioning  allows  added t a s t e .  One  large  previously  complete  previously  degree than a p p r o p r i a t e results added a  that  taste  the  shown i n t h e  order  conditioning  One account  w i t h a new element taste  also postulate large  When t h e  could of  by  of  the  unexpectedly  Bond &  Harland  effects in a taste  with  to a  a  the  rats'  procedure lesser  a r g u e from  avoidance  of  these the  e x p e r i m e n t s i s due  (added t a s t e - L i C l a s s o c i a t i o n ) taste  to plus  association)  taste  r a t has  to poison,  to the  new  conditioning  been p o i s o n e d  e l e m e n t , the  element)? This  a s u r v i v a l mechanism  amount o f  experiences that  x leads  salience)  avoidance  stimulus  s e r i e s of  (added t a s t e - a v e r s i v e  f o r the  subseguently  It  effect.  could  stimulus.  effect  toxicosis  injected into  c o n t r o l r a t s . One  both  made a v e r s i v e  by  in  taste  order conditioning  taste  present  In  element.  a neutral  solution  neutral  by  conditioning  paired  second  the  for this  report  substantial conditioning  normal c o n d i t i o n i n g  a second  order  aversive  to the  of  in accounting  p r o c e d u r e . They  conditioned  the  element  conditioning  f o r second  of  followed  other taste  e f f e c t i s a recent  mouths. R a t s e x p o s e d preferred  one  administered.  was  a taste  possibility  evidence  taste aversion  to  same s o l u t i o n s  i n intake  Compound  presence of  conditioning  (1975) o f  the  these  was  reduction  element no  of  may  what a b o u t  would l e a d  to  (added) t a s t e  an  the  once and  poison again, rat  to  only  adopt the  that  added  then now  combined  rule:  taste  t a s t e element  y  (the  enhanced a t t e n t i o n  element  would  which s h o u l d  new  (or increase  116  its  conditionability  lines data  LoLordo, from  of  1973).  blocking  pretraining  control  & Wagner, 1972).  Foree  blocking  (light  LoLordo  procedure  tone  It  may  results  be  that  was  elements.  a  iis.  and  Thus, r a t s  i n compound  in  used  The by  first  control  and  illness  when  pigeons  blocking  tone.  conditioned  t o the  the r a t s  t o t h e r a t . The a notion.  avoided both  When a component Such  b l o c k i n g a c c o r d i n g t o LoLordo  o f more a r b i t r a r y  Kamin and  light,  over behavior.  apparently "attend" to a l l tastes.  use  i n an  found  i n subseguent to t h e  the  t a s k , see  t o n e . They  IB s u p p o r t s u c h  operate against  analysis.  lights  no  IA  f o l l o w e d by  would s e e m i n q l y  and  a l l tastes are "relevant"  of Experiments  compound  i n an a p p e t i t i v e  with l i g h t  when added  acquired almost  these  occur  e t a l . (1976) u s e d  C o n v e r s e l y , when r e s p o n d i n g was the  does not  with tone d i d not r e s u l t  by l i g h t  Along  (1976) have r e c e n t l y r e p o r t e d  that  i s "relevant"  6 LoLordo,  appetitive that  Jacobs, &  p i g e o n s showing  added element Foree  (Eescorla  o t h e r s may  stimuli  such as  allow blocking  et  tones  to occur  the r a t .  The  data f o r the r e m a i n i n g groups  obtained both  with Groups  taste  solution with  elements  relative  illness.  solutions  1 and  results i n less intake  results  were p r e e x p o s e d  of  "learned  of  each  when p a i r e d  o f t h e added  with t o x i c o s i s .  taste  first  predictable.  once,, t h u s r e s u l t i n g  would t h u s  results preexposing  the s o l u t i o n  are r e a d i l y  safety" or at least  solution  the  2. Group 4 showed t h a t  t o t h e Compound and  These  support  i n an  paired  Both  increment  "learned irrelevance".  Avoidance  be e x p e c t e d t o be c o n d i t i o n e d Thus, NaCl  avoidance  taste  would  be  slower  117  predicted  to  Hhile  results  the  be  conditioned of  N a C l a v o i d a n c e can acceptance of  to  a lesser  Group 4 c l e a r l y show t h a t  be  a t t e n u a t e d , i t does n o t  a blocking  interpretation-  blocking  interpretation  i t would  Compound  with  several  for  toxicosis  Group 7 ) .  If  argue s t r o n g l y  The  results  solution no the  was  obtained  blocking  of  the  of  NaCl are salty  are  Bekesy,  of  the  present  by  was  of  The  Also  an  (i.e.,  shows t h e  pairing  a v o i d a n c e . The  g r o u p consumed a n o r m a l amount o f  experiment  (NaCl-LiCl,  generalization-  a  Saccharin.  lack  two  generalization  test  Saccharin)  Six  and  sweet  and  1966;  out  at  the  of  rats  days l a t e r f o r  effect.  added  accounted  al.,  Saccharin-LiCl  evidence of  be  high rules  the  Saccharin  et  of  levels  testing  evidence that  (Erickson,  still  relatively  experiment c a r r i e d  tested  was  suppression to  between N a C l and  no  could  first  reduced to  generalization  showing  procedure  avoidance  Vinegar, during  effect  research  and  the  the  h i g h t h e n one  LiCl.  Besides the  r e s u l t s of  the  experiments cannot  qualitatively different  1966), t h e  beginning  present  in taste).  pair  three times there  i s followed  a generalization  similar  an  apply  even i f the  NaCl i n t a k e  a g e n e r a l neophobic r e a c t i o n -  i n terms of  ( t h i s was  conditioning  novel s o l u t i o n ,  i n a l l of t h e  to  of  interpretation.  impairment fact,  happen-  conditioning  order to  remained  with t o x i c o s i s  In  In  This did  argue f o r  necessary  times  intake s t i l l  when N a C l o n l y  solution for  an  solution.  consumption out  of  a  be  of G r o u p 5 showed t h a t  paired  indication added  NaCl  for  degree-  were g i v e n NaCl  NaCl, The  thus  reverse  showed a s i m i l a r  lack  of  a  118  The four  r e s u l t s o f Group 6 were n o t  of s i x r a t s  (three  males and  blocking  was  found. Intake of the  rats  0.1  ml.  was  blocking, results LiCl the  However, two  consuming  are  13  of  the  one  female)  conclusive.  For  no  of  evidence  added s o l u t i o n f o r t h e s e  f e m a l e s showed e v i d e n c e  10  ml  somewhat e q u i v o c a l ,  used, d i f f i c u l t intake  and  entirely  of  the  and  the  supports a s p e c i f i c i t y  s o l u t i o n . Vinegar, of  conditioning  be  during  the  l o w e r dose  to i n t e r p r e t . Again i t should  novel  of  s o l u t i o n . Thus,  because o f  four  noted  of  that  testing  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  the  results.  The  r e s u l t s o f Group 7 add  blocking Every  i n taste aversion  r a t of  solution  as  (NaCl o r  fact, is  Saccharin)  as  plus  (Kalat S  the  smaller  lack of  a  significantly  to  Rozin,  1973;  to the  system  the  blocking  does n o t  preexposure.  series).  S IB),  make  1975;  This  e f f e c t when a t a s t e  element  the  more s u r p r i s i n g .  Experiment  literature.  (under t h e  retard  Fenwick, e t a l . ,  ( E x p e r i m e n t s IA  r e s u l t s of  added  b e e n shown t o  present  e f f e c t even  that  obtain.  the  i t s extensive often  conditioning  blocking  Taken t o g e t h e r  gustatory  despite  s e v e r a l experiments i n the  r e i n f o r c e d i n compound  present  argument  is difficult  a t a s t e s o l u t i o n has  conditioning  well  learning  to the  Group 7 showed c o m p l e t e a v o i d a n c e o f  Preexposure of later  strength  VI  contribute  Blocking  conditions  of  in the  the present  s e r i e s o f e x p e r i m e n t s ) o c c u r even i f a v o i d a n c e of the  first  stimulus  asymptotic  levels  i s highly overtrained (Group 5 ) .  well conditioned.  In  fact,  Bescorla  and  quite  obviously  avoidance of the & Wagner  at  added e l e m e n t  (1972) a c c o u n t  for  is  blocking  119  by  suggesting  conditioning.  that  a given  UCS  T h u s , i f one  compounding  stimulus  will  stimulus  compound i s a l r e a d y The  position. and  yet  of  Saccharin  This  Kamin blocking.  He  suggested  stimulus.  the  by  added  blocking  levels  to insure  a  avoidance a  conditioning the  r e s u l t s of  suggested  stimulus,  but  the  first  trials  (because the  Kamin»s, i f the new,  added that  stimulus  from t h e i s not  conditioning  presentation  or  will  Gray 6 A p p i g n a n e s i ,  can  but  not  i s now  does  on  redundant  notion  of  redundant, i . e . , p r e d i c t s o c c u r . Kamin showed  the  1973). I f t h e  the  because of i t s  redundancy  a change i n UCS  compound-UCS p a i r i n g e l i m i n a t e d  by  UCS  added s t i m u l u s  trial,  added s t i m u l u s  is  conditioning  doesn't  compound c o n d i t i o n i n g  when a UCS  predicted  that  to the  of  procedure, the  " s u r p r i s i n g " ; being  Kamin showed c o n d i t i o n i n g  UCS  high  a d d i t i o n of  l e a r n i n g occurs only  prediction)- I t follows  something  very  a d i f f e r e n t explanation  Kamin t h e r e f o r e  occur t o the  redundancy-  also  that  compound i s n o t  succeeding  the  this  Thus, a l t h o u g h  l e v e l s the  or " s u r p r i s i n g " . In  first  o c c u r on  at  sufficient  i s a l s o supported  (1969), s u g g e s t e d  the  extra  was  because  conditioning  r e s u l t e d i n a powerful  conclusion  after  one  still  conditioned  7.  unpredicted  an  at asymptotic  well  contradict  obviously  Compound-LiCl t r i a l  was  G r o u p s 6 and  t o UCS  was  much  (or r e d u n d a n t )  near a s y m p t o t i c  avoidance  so  of c o n d i t i o n i n g  decrease i n NaCl consumption.  redundant t a s t e  indeed  added  r e s u l t s o f Group 4 a p p a r e n t l y  Saccharin  effect.  evidence  only  i s already  with a n o t h e r , the  show l i t t l e  j u s t one  dramatic  support  stimulus  p r i o r to  levels.  will  that  intensity following  blocking  effect  (see  i n t e r o c e p t i v e e f f e c t s of  120  LiCl  change w i t h  LiCl  pairing  result this  successive  administrations,  (following a s i n g l e element-LiCl  in conditioning  explanation  can  three  it  the  u n l i k e l y that  to  the  account  Group 5 r e c e i v e d  fourth  reasoning  also  Mackintosh  the  like  present  electric  (1975  that  of  He  has  applied  conditioning  a,b)  has  the  the  learning  learned 4,  that  and  added  degree of aversion trial  5  solution)  Mackintosh to  of  on  5 and  out  believes the  same 6.  theory  at l e a s t part and  of the  of  first  compound  conditioning  to  the  i s due  formulation-  of  The  the  added t a s t e  element-  r e s u l t s o f G r o u p s 6 and  7 do  This  not  1, of  Because, t h e  l a r g e a f t e r one the  intake  to have  r e s u l t s of Groups  trial  first  in  in fact  f i t as  taste  Compound  would r e s u l t i n a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of c o n d i t i o n i n g  avoidance of  to  first  blocking  suppression  would p r e d i c t t h a t  of  an  added e l e m e n t o n c e t h e y  complete  i s usually  making  licking  that  that  6.  (following  the  restricted  f i t into this  l e a r n i n g , one  This  forth a  added s t i m u l u s  ignore  f o r the  conditioning  put  if  be  a s u b s t a n t i a l amount  i t i s redundant. Part (except  three.  suppression  Mackintosh points  trial.  would  used a t o n e , a l i g h t ,  with another stimulus)  conditioning  Groups  Kamin which a l s o e x p l a i n s  shown, t h a t  trial.  should  r e s u l t s of Group  recently  a d d e d ' s t i m u l u s a p p e a r s t o be  animals'  r e s u l t s of  previous  to  does o c c u r t o t h e  preconditioning  the  the  r e s u l t s . Mackintosh  conditioning  2,  f o r the  shock i n a c o n d i t i o n e d  procedure.  the  be  pairing)  added e l e m e n t . I t i s d o u b t f u l  (Compound-LiCl)  d i f f e r e n t from  can  compound-  p r i o r s o l u t i o n - L i C l p a i r i n g s , thus  substantially  somewhat  then the  of  occurred.  well  into  121  Mackintosh's formulation. 6)  or  the  extensive  much l e s s first result than  i n no  that  be  of  the  redundancy can conditioning  The taste  trial.  p r o d u c e d on  that  be  learned;  to the  in addition a  notion  increased  that on  in a  lack to  rate  blocking  at  least  two  unexpectedly shown by accounted order  by  1 and  by  did  Group 7.  complete  added as  unless  conditioning  to  It  taste  t o Group 3 i s not  due  not  occurred.  parameter i s  present  one  effect,  or  temporarily  the  added  experiment  events.  that  element  as  of  1976), and  can  lack  (1975a,b; see  also  to  the  G r o u p s 5,  added  6,  stimulus The stimulus  and  can  7)  second  stimulus-stimulus  cue-conseguence  of  added  factors, including: 1976),  be  simple  i t i s redundant.  conditioning  (as w e l l  The  occurs t o the  (Bond & H a r l a n d ,  (Lavin,  time  already  Mackintosh  learned  a combination  conditioning  associations  2  before  formulation,  c l a s s e s of  l a r g e amount o f  Groups for  not  r a t s of  this  order  McHose S Moor, 1976). C o n d i t i o n i n g r a t has  obviously  situation.  i n the  predicted  any  element  avoidance of the  compound t r i a l  of  added s t i m u l u s  has  of  learning  first  is easily  because the  should  2 relative  known c o n d i t i o n i n g  attributed blocking  the  pairings  numerous t r i a l s  second  predict  Compound-LiCl  Group 6 o r  strong  would  (Group  the  f o r i n Mackintosh's  the  one  p a i r i n g . This  substantial conditioning  posits  dose o f L i C l  t a s t e on  however, by  1 and  low  redundant  to the  added s t i m u l u s  seen i n Groups  The  added o r  first  rat requires  accounted  being  the  the  (Group 7 ) ,  Repeated  s i x r a t s of  easily  the  t o the  more c o n d i t i o n i n g  occur i n four may  preexposure  conditioning  conditioning  Because o f  relevance  be  122  (Revusky S G a r c i a , 1 9 7 6 ) ; a l l o f which added s o l u t i o n .  1973;  Shettleworth,  contribute  1972;  LoLordo e t a l . ,  to the increased  s a l i e n c e of the  123  GENERAL SUMMARY In all,  would  The  control-  The r e s u l t s  second g o a l  certain  aspects  u s e f u l n e s s of such a  was t o p r o v i d e  of t r a d i t i o n a l  by d e m o n s t r a t i n g  of a conditioned  compound  stimulus  elements-  of  c o n d i t i o n i n g phenomenac o n t r o l both  This  by t h e e l e m e n t s  A l s o , work was p r e s e n t e d  concerning  (Experiments  I I I & IV)  and b l o c k i n g - I t i s e v i d e n t  o f compound s t i m u l u s  c o n t r o l can be  using a mixed-solution-gustatory-malaise  technigue  investigation.  The  third  delineation  goal  ( p e r h a p s t h e most i m p o r t a n t )  of the gustatory-malaise  cue-conseguence system s i m i l a r cue-conseguence systems. general in  information  and by a compound o f s e p a r a t e l y  w e l l a s work on o v e r s h a d o w i n g many a s p e c t s  technigue.  some p r e l i m i n a r y  i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n a compound  investigated  taste  o f E x p e r i m e n t s I t h r o u g h VI  was a c c o m p l i s h e d  conditioned  of mixing  p r o v e u s e f u l i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f compound  demonstrate the p o t e n t i a l  that  were o u t l i n e d - F i r s t o f  i t was hoped t h a t t h e b a s i c t e c h n i g u e  stimulus  as  DISCUSSION  the I n t r o d u c t i o n , s e v e r a l goals  solutions  on  AND  more commonly  phenomenon  (see G a r c i a , Hawkins, 6 R u s i n a k ,  1 9 7 6 ) . The p r e s e n t  research  of s i m i l a r i t i e s  more t r a d i t i o n a l  studied  out i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n , the  unigueness of the t a s t e a v e r s i o n  dispute  evidence  system a s a c o n d i t i o n a b l e  to other  As p o i n t e d  c o n c e r n s t,he  i n general  i s presently  1976, and  Bitterman,  provides a d d i t i o n a l  between t a s t e a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g a n d  cue-conseguence  l e a r n i n g . Experiment  IA and IB  showed t h a t c o n d i t i o n i n g o f a v o i d a n c e o f t h e e l e m n t s o f a compound  gustatory  stimulus  can occur  i n ways s i m i l a r  to that i n  124  other  cue-consequence systems. These r e s u l t s  Experiment  I I (showing  separately  c o n d i t i o n e d elements)  traditional systems 1965;  system i s capable  The  results into  explanations. taste  of a higher  more  conditioned  paradigms IV  with  demonstrated system  compounded with  literature  malaise  effects  Possible appetite,  a novel then  than  easily  learning  most o r a l l o f t h e  solution.  in traditional  (Weiss,  solution-  forin  This i s learning  1972).  1972) w i l l  Experiment  o c c u r i n the  solution i s  These r e s u l t s a l s o  c o n d i t i o n e d and l a t e n t  (safe)  s o l u t i o n and t h e  c a n be a c c o u n t e d  when a f a m i l a r ( s a f e ) t a s t e  meshed  inhibition  1972)-  V demonstrated  system, but f a i l e d  Saccharin  with  1971; R e s c o r l a S Wagner,  w i t h an u n s a f e  Experiment  processing  I I I showed t h a t i f a f a m i l i a r  that averaging  (Hearst,  learning  that the gustatory  cue-conseguence  of the novel t a s t e  the t r a d i t i o n a l  with  approach.  o f t h e compound  similar  made up o f  I I I and IV were a l s o  traditional  avoidance  (Revusky,  gustatory  and s u g g e s t s  systems"  those of  o f " c o n f i g u r i n g " (Razran,  f o l l o w e d by t o x i c o s i s ,  terms o f avoidance consistent  cue-consequence  i s put i n compound  i s then  well  order o f stimulus  of Experiments  Experiment  solution  compound  was f o u n d ,  by a " p r i m i t i v e  integrated  f i t i n very  1 9 7 2 ) , Some e v i d e n c e  R e s c o r l a , 1972)  with  o f a t a s t e compound  formulations of other  (Weiss,  suggested  avoidance  along  i n the g u s t a t o r y -  t o show a s y m m e t r i c a l  overshadowed NaCl, e x p l a n a t i o n s , such  overshadowing  effect, i.e..  b u t t h e r e v e r s e was n o t o b t a i n e d . a s n o v e l t y and i n n a t e s o d i u m  were d i s c u s s e d , b u t s u c h  asymmetry i s n o t uncommon i n  125  other  cue-conseguence  The  results  most d i f f i c u l t formulation. then  to  f i t into  Following  case.  an  In f a c t  added element  Revusky,  was  contrasted  to other Rozin  al.  obtain  It adaptive Barnett  out,  (1975b) s u g g e s t  the  (1963) has  survival  may  be  result  rats'  clearly  i f certain  not  the  avoidance of  due  to a  the  fundamental as  ( G a r c i a , McGowan, & Bitterman  be  based  (1976)  on governing  a  experimental  r e s u l t s of LoLordo et  o f Kamin  (1969)  p o s s i b l e reasons  and  f o r the  c o n d i t i o n s under which  out  failure  to  blocking  cue-avoidance l e a r n i n g .  to speculate  s y s t e m i s very  1971), and  mechanisms had  on  the  unigue  l e a r n i n g . The  i s h i g h l y adapted  gustatory  (Rozin & K a l a t ,  an  unigue p r o p e r t i e s are  gustatory-malaise  pointed  in  and  element  l e a r n i n g system  nevertheless of  and  apparent  in traditional  significance  e n v i r o n m e n t . The  any  the  stimulus,  fundamental r e l a t i o n s  notions  suggests  i s interesting  surprising  of  theoretical  occur  1971). T h i s was  conclusions should  A l s o , the r e c e n t  b l o c k i n g and  would n o t  should  1 9 7 1 ) . However, a s  phenomenon b e f o r e  (1976) and  Mackintosh  its  S Kalat,  t o be  toxicosis,  novel  cue-conseguence systems  investigation  emphasized.  with  added s t i m u l u s  gustatory-malaise  recently pointed  particular  toxicosis  proved  cue-conseguence  another  demonstrated. T h i s  i n the  1972;  blocking  enhancement o f c o n d i t i o n i n g o f  difference  extensive  with  with  of c o n d i t i o n i n g t o the 1969;  has  on  taste stimulus  that stimulus  (Kamin, 1968,  Green,  VI  1965).  a traditional  one  t h a t compound  attenuation  (Baron,  of Experiment  compounding  following  systems  as  to i t s important  i t would n o t  evolved  rat  for  be  to i n s u r e a c l o s e  126  association et al-/  between g u s t a t o r y  1974)-  Many p e o p l e have a r g u e d  mechanisms i n a n i m a l s Hager, Kalat  1972).  demonstrable  of Experiment  (1972), s u g g e s t t h a t  as b l o c k i n g  system  VI, as well as those of  may be a more f u n d a m e n t a l  learning  system  o f t h e r a t . T h i s may be due  difference  (Kalat & Rozin,  phenomenon as  1975) may n o t be e a s i l y  t o some p a r a m e t r i c a s p e c t o f t h e s i t u a t i o n it  (Garcia  1972; S e l i g m a n S  a learning  (see W i l l i a m s ,  i n the gustatory  and s i c k n e s s  f o r the e x i s t e n c e o f such  (e.<j-, s h e t t l e w o r t h ,  The r e s u l t s  and R o z i n  fundamental  stimulation  1972)-  ( B i t t e r m a n , 1976), o r  i n the g u s t a t o r y - m a l a i s e  127 REFERENCES B a k e r , T . f i . P r o p e r t i e s o f compound c o n d i t i o n e d s t i m u l i and components. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1968, 73, 611-625.  their  B a l a g u r a , S., B r o p h y , J . , 6 D a v e n p o r t , L- D. M o d i f i c a t i o n o f l e a r n e d a v e r s i o n t o L i C l and N a C l by m u l t i p l e e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h L i C l . J o u r n a l of C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l Psj£cholocjy ,  1972, 8J~ 212-219."  x  B a l a g u r a , S, & S m i t h , D.F. R o l e o f L i C l and e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t i m u l i on g e n e r a l i z e d l e a r n e d a v e r s i o n s t o N a C l i n t h e r a t . A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f P h y s i o l o g y . 1970, 2J9, 1231-1234. B a r n e t t , S. A. The R a t : A S t u d y i n B e h a v i o r . Press, 1963.  Chicago:  Aldine  B a r o n , M. R. The s t i m u l u s , s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l , and s t i m u l u s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . I n D. I . M o s t o f s k y (Ed.), Stimulus G e n e r a l i z a t i o n , S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965, Pp. 67-71. B e k e s y , G. Von T e m p e r a t u r e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h e e l e c t r i c a l t h r e s h o l d s of t a s t e s e n s a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f General P h y s i o l o g y , 1966, 49, 27-35. B e n j a m i n , R.M. & A k e r t , K. C o r t i c a l and t h a l a m i c a r e a s i n v o l v e d i n t a s t e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t h e a l b i n o r a t . J o u r n a l of C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1959, VII., 231-259. B e s t , M. R. C o n d i t i o n e d and l a t e n t i n h i b i t i o n i n t a s t e a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g : C l a r i f y i n g the r o l e of l e a r n e d s a f e t y . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : A n i m a l B e h a v i o r P r o c e s s e s , 19 75, 1, 97113. B e s t , P. J . , B e s t , M. R., & M i c k l e y , G. A. C o n d i t i o n e d to d i s t i n c t e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t i m u l i r e s u l t i n g from g a s t r o i n t e s t i n a l d i s t r e s s - J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l 0 3 2 , 1973,~85, 250-257. B i t t e r m a n , M- E. The c o m p a r a t i v e 1975, 188, 699-709. Bitterman, 266-267.  M. E. T a s t e  aversions  analysis of l e a r n i n g . Science  aversion l e a r n i n g . Science,  1976,  192,  B l o u g h , D. S. R e c o g n i t i o n by t h e p i g e o n o f s t i m u l i v a r y i n g i n two d i m e n s i o n s . J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1972, 187~345-367. Bond, N., 6 H a r l a n d , 8. H i g h e r o r d e r c o n d i t i o n i n g o f a t a s t e a v e r s i o n . A n i m a l L e a r n i n g and B e h a v i o r , 1975, 3, 295-296. B o o t h , J . H. & Hammond, L . J . C o n f i g u r a l c o n d i t i o n i n g : g r e a t e r f e a r i n r a t s t o t h e compound t h a n component t h r o u g h o v e r t r a i n i n g o f t h e compound. J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 87,  128  255-262, B u e r g e r , A. A,, & F e n n e s s y , A. L o n g - t e r m a l t e r a t i o n o f l e g p o s i t i o n i n c h r o n i c s p i n a l r a t s . E x p e r i m e n t a l N e u r o l o g y , 1971, 30, 195-211. B u r e s o v a , 0., & B u r e s , J . C o r t i c a l and s u b c o r t i c a l components o f t h e c o n d i t i o n e d s a c c h a r i n a v e r s i o n . P h x s i o l o a y , and B e h a v i o r , 1973, 11, 435-439. B u r e s o v a , 0., & B u r e s , J . F u n c t i o n a l d e c o r t i c a t i o n i n t h e CS-US i n t e r v a l decreases e f f i c i e n c y of taste aversion l e a r n i n g . B e h a v i o r a l B i o l o g y , 1974, ,12, 357-3 64. B u t t e r , C M. S t i m u l u s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n a l o n g one and two d i m e n s i o n s i n p i g e o n s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l £sicholo£y_, 65, 339-346.  1963,  C h a s e , S., & Heinemann, E . G. C h o i c e s b a s e d on r e d u n d a n t i n f o r m a t i o n : an a n a l y s i s o f t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 92, 161-175. C h o p i n , S. F., & B u e r g e r , A. A. G r a d e d a c g u i s i t i o n o f an i n s t r u m e n t a l a v o i d a n c e r e s p o n s e by t h e s p i n a l r a t . P h y s i o l o g y and B e h a v i o r , 1 9 7 5 , 15, 155-158C h u r c h , R- M-, & L e r n e r , N- D. Does t h e h e a d l e s s r o a c h a v o i d ? P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 4, 439-442.  learn to  C o r n e l l , J.M., & S t r u b , H.A. A t e c h n i g u e f o r d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e i n h i b i t o r y f u n c t i o n o f S-. P s y c h o n o m i c S c i e n c e , 1965, 3, 25-26. D a v e n p o r t , L. D. A v e r s i o n s t o a p a l a t a b l e s a l i n e s o l u t i o n i n r a t s : i n t e r a c t i o n s o f p h y s i o l o g y and e x p e r i e n c e . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1973, 83, 98-105. D e r - K a r a b e t i a n , A., 6 G o r r y , T. Amount o f d i f f e r e n t f l a v o r s consumed d u r i n g t h e CS-US i n t e r v a l i n t a s t e - a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g and i n t e r f e r e n c e . P h y s i o l o g i c a l £sy_cholog_y_, 197 4, 2, 4 57-46 0. Domjan, M. CS p r e e x p o s u r e i n t a s t e - a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g : e f f e c t s o f d e p r i v a t i o n and p r e e x p o s u r e d u r a t i o n . L e a r n i n g and M o t i v a t i o n , 1972, 3, 389-402. Domjan, M., & W i l s o n , N. E. S p e c i f i c i t y o f cue t o c o n s e g u e n c e i n a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g i n t h e r a t . Psjrchonomic S c i e n c e , 1972a, 2 6, 143-145. Domjan, M., S W i l s o n , N. E, C o n t r i b u t i o n o f i n g e s t i v e b e h a v i o r s t o t a s t e - a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g i n the r a t . J o u r n a l o f Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1972b, 80,"403-412. D r a g o i n , W. B., M c C l e a r y , G. E., & M c C l e a r y , P. A c o m p a r i s o n o f two methods o f m e a s u r i n g c o n d i t i o n e d t a s t e a v e r s i o n s . B e h a v i o r R e s e a r c h Methods and I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . 1971. 3. 309-310.  129  E m u r i a n , H. H. , & Weiss S. J . Compounding d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l i c o n t r o l l i n g f r e e - o p e r a n t avoidance. J o u r n a l o f the E x p e r i m e n t a l Ana l y s i s of B e h a v i o r , 1972, 17, 249-2567 E r i c k s o n , R. P., D o e t s c h , G. S., S M a r s h a l l , D. A. The g u s t a t o r y n e u r a l response f u n c t i o n . J o u r n a l of General Physiology, 1966, 49, 247-263. F a r e l , P. B., S B u e r g e r , A. A. I n s t r u m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n i n g o f l e g p o s i t i o n i n c h r o n i c s p i n a l f r o g s : b e f o r e and a f t e r s c i a t i c s e c t i o n . B r a i n H e s e a r c h , 1972, 47, 345-351. F e n w i c k , S., M i k u l a , P. J . , & K l e i n , S. B. The e f f e c t o f d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p r e e x p o s u r e t o s u c r o s e on t h e a c g u i s i t i o n and e x t i n c t i o n o f a c o n d i t i o n e d a v e r s i o n . B e h a v i o r a l B i o l o g y , 1975, 14, 231-235. F o r e e , D. D., & L o L o r d o , V. M. A t t e n t i o n i n t h e p i g e o n : the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of f o o d - g e t t i n g v s . shock-avoidance p r o c e d u r e s . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 85, 551-558." F o r e e , D. D., S L o L o r d o , V. M. S t i m u l u s - r e i n f o r c e r i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t h e p i g e o n : t h e r o l e o f e l e c t r i c shock and t h e a v o i d a n c e contingency. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology^ Animal Behavior P r o c e s s e s , 1975, 104, 39-46. ~ ~ " F r u m k i n , K. I n t e r a c t i o n o f L i C l a v e r s i o n and s o d i u m - s p e c i f i c h u n g e r i n t h e a d r e n a l e c t o m i z e d r a t . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and £ M s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 75, 32-40." G a r c i a , J . , & E r v i n , F. R. G u s t a t o r y - v i s c e r a l and t e l e r e c e p t o r c u t a n e o u s c o n d i t i o n i n g : a d a p t i o n i n i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l m i l i e u s . C o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n B e h a v i o r a l B i o l o g y , 1968, 1, 3 89-415. G a r c i a , J . , & K o e l l i n g , E. A. R e l a t i o n o f cue t o c o n s e g u e n c e i n a v o i d a n c e l e a r n i n g . P s y c h o n o m i c S c i e n c e , 1966, 4, 123-124. G a r c i a , J . , S K o e l l i n g , R. A. A c o m p a r i s o n o f a v e r s i o n s i n d u c e d by X - r a y s , t o x i n s , and d r u g s i n t h e r a t . R a t i a t i o n R e s e a r c h S u £ £ 1 e m e n t , 1967, 7, 439-450. Garcia, J . , Ervin, prolonged delay o f 121-122.  F. R., & K o e l l i n g , R. A. L e a r n i n g w i t h r e i n f o r c e m e n t . P s y c h o n o m i c S c i e n c e . 1966,  G a r c i a , J . , H a n k i n s , ». G. , & R u s i n i a k , r e g u l a t i o n o f t h e m i l i e u i n t e r n e i n man 184, 823-831-  K. W. B e h a v i o r a l and r a t . S c i e n c e .  G a r c i a , J . , H a n k i n s , W. G., & R u s i n i a k , l e a r n i n g . S c i e n c e , 1976, 192, 265-266.  K.  W.  Taste  5,  1974,  aversion  G a r c i a , J . , K i m e l d o r f , D. J . , 6 Hunt, E. L. The use o f i o n i z i n g r a d i a t i o n as a m o t i v a t i n g s t i m u l u s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1961, 6 8, 383-395. " " "  130  G a r c i a , J . , K o v n e r , B., & G r e e n , K. F . Cue p r o p e r t i e s v s . p a l a t a b i l i t y o f f l a v o r s i n a v o i d a n c e l e a r n i n g . M i c h gnomic S c i e n c e , 1970, 20, 313-314. G a r c i a , J . , McGowan, B. K., & G r e e n , K. F. B i o l o g i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s on c o n d i t i o n i n g . I n A- fl. B l a c k , & w. F . P r o k a s y , ( E d s . ) , C l a s s i c a l C o n d i t i o n i n g Ilz. C u r r e n t R e s e a r c h and T h e o r y , New Y o r k : A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1972, Pp. 3-27. G a r c i a , J . , McGowan, B. K., E r v i n , F. R., & K o e l l i n g , R. C u e s : t h e i r r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e r e i n f o r c e r - S c i e n c e . 1968, .160, 794-795.  A.  G r a y , T., & A p p i g n a n e s i , A. A. Compound c o n d i t i o n i n g : e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e b l o c k i n g e f f e c t . L e a r n i n g and M o t i v a t i o n , 1973, 4, 374-380. G r e e n , K. F., & G a r c i a , J . R e c u p e r a t i o n f r o m i l l n e s s : enhancement f o r r a t s . S c i e n c e , 1971, 17 3, 749-751.  flavor  G r e e n , K. F., Holmstrom, L. S., & Wollman, M. A. R e l a t i o n o f c u e t o consequence i n r a t s : e f f e c t s o f r e c u p e r a t i o n from i l l n e s s . B e h a v l S i l l §;i2±££X' 1974, JK), 491-503. G r e e n , L . , B o u z a s , A., & R a c h l i n , H. T e s t o f an e l e c t r i c - s h o c k a n a l o g t o i l l n e s s - i n d u c e d a v e r s i o n . B e h a v i o r a l Biology., 1972, 7, 513-518. G r o t e , F. W., J r . , & Brown, R. T. C o n d i t i o n e d t a s t e a v e r s i o n s : t w o - s t i m u l u s t e s t s a r e more s e n s i t i v e t h a n o n e - s t i m u l u s t e s t s . B e h a v i o r R e s e a r c h Methods and I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n . 1971, 3, 311-312. H a l g r e n , C- R, L a t e n t i n h i b i t i o n i n r a t s : a s s o c i a t i v e o r n o n a s s o c i a t i v e ? J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and Phy.siolooJ.cal Psy.chol0£_y, 1974, 86, 74-78. H e n d e r s o n , R. W. Compounds o f c o n d i t i o n e d and M o t i v a t i o n , 1975, 6, 28-42.  fear  stimuli.  Learning  H e a r s t , E. Some p e r s i s t e n t p r o b l e m s i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f c o n d i t i o n e d i n h i b i t i o n . I n R. A. B o a k e s , & M. S. H a l l i d a y ( E d s . ) , I n h i b i t i o n and L e a r n i n g . L o n d o n : A c a d e m i c P r e s s I n c , 1972, PpT 5-39. H e r r i c k , C. J . The E v o l u t i o n B r o t h e r s , 1961."  o f Human N a t u r e ,  New  York: Harper &  H o r r i d g e , G. A. L e a r n i n g o f l e g p o s i t i o n by t h e v e n t r a l n e r v e cord i n headless i n s e c t s . Proceedings of the Eo^al Society, 1962, B157, 33-52. J o h n s o n , D. F. D e t e r m i n e r s o f s e l e c t i v e s t i m u l u s c o n t r o l i n t h e p i g e o n . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y . s i o l o g i c a 1 P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 70, 298-307. J o h n s o n , D. F., & Cumming, 8 ,  W.  Some d e t e r m i n e r s o f a t t e n t i o n -  131  Journal 166.  of the Experimental A n a l y s i s  of Behavior,  1968,  11, 157-  K a l a t , J . W. T a s t e s a l i e n c e d e p e n d s on n o v e l t y , n o t c o n c e n t r a t i o n , i n t a s t e - a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g i n the r a t . Journal C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l Psy_cho 1 o g j , 1974, 86, 47-50.  of  K a l a t , J . W. , S R o z i n , P. " S a l i e n c e " : a f a c t o r which c a n o v e r r i d e temporal c o n t i g u i t y i n t a s t e - a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g Journal o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 71, 192-197. K a l a t , J . W., & R o z i n , P. R o l e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e i n t a s t e - a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 77, 5 3 - 5 8 " K a l a t , J . w., & R o z i n , P. You c a n l e a d a r a t t o p o i s o n b u t you c a n ' t make him t h i n k . I n fi. E . P. S e l i g m a n & J . L. Hager (Eds.) , B i o l o g i c a l Boundaries o f L e a r n i n g , New Y o r k : A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y C r o f t s , " " l 9 7 2 , Pp. 112-1157 K a l a t , J . w., 8 R o z i n , P. " L e a r n e d s a f t e y " as a mechanism i n long-delay taste-aversion learning i n rats. Journal of C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 83, 198-207. Kamin, L . J . A t t e n t i o n - l i k e p r o c e s s e s I n M. R. J o n e s ( E d . ) , M i a m i Symposium Behavior, Aversive Stimulation. Coral U n i v e r s i t y o f Miami P r e s s , 1968, Pp.  i n classical conditioning. on t h e P r e d i c t i o n o f Gables, F l o r i d a : 9-33.  Kamin, L. J . P r e d i c t a b i l i t y , s u r p r i s e , a t t e n t i o n , and c o n d i t i o n i n g . I n B. A. C a m p b e l l , & R. M. C h u r c h (Eds.), P u n i s h m e n t a n d • A v e r s i v e B e h a v i o r , New Y o r k : A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y C r o f t s , 19697~Pp- 279-295K i m b l e , G. A. F o u n d a t i o n s o f C o n d i t i o n i n g York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1967.  and L e a r n i n g ,  K i m u r a , K., & B e i d l e r , L- M. M i c r o e l e c t r o d e s t u d y r e c e p t o r s o f r a t and h a m s t e r . J o u r n a l o f C e l l u l a r Comparative Physiology. 1961, 58, "T31-1 39. ~  New  of taste and  K i r k , R. E. ExjgerJ.mental D e s i g n : P r o c e d u r e s f o r - t h e S c i e n c e s , B e l m o n t , C a l i f o r n i a : B r o o k s / C o l e , 1968.  Behavioral  K r a n e , R. v., & Wagner, A. R. T a s t e - a v e r s i o n l e a r n i n g w i t h a a e l a y e d - s h o c k US: i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e " g e n e r a l i t y o f t h e l a w s o f l e a r n i n g " . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l £ s i c h o l ogjr, 1975, 88, 882-889. Kremer, E . F. P r o p e r t i e s o f a p r e e x p o s e d S c i e n c e , 1972, 27, 45-47.  stimulus.  Psjchonomic  K r i e c k h a u s , E. E . " I n n a t e r e c o g n i t i o n " a i d s r a t s i n s o d i u m r e g u l a t i o n - J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l Psychology,, 1970, 73, 117-"l22.~  132  Lawson, R. , M a t t i s , P. R-, & P e a r , J . J . Summation o f r e s p o n s e r a t e s to d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l i a s s o c i a t e d with q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t r e i n f o r c e r s - J o u r n a l of the E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1968, 11, 561-568. L e t t , B. T. D e l a y e d r e w a r d l e a r n i n g : d i s p r o o f o f t h e t h e o r y - L e a r n i n g and M o t i v a t i o n , 1973, 4, 237-246. L e t t , B. T. Motivation,  Long d e l a y l e a r n i n g i n t h e 1975, 6, 80-9 0.  traditional  T-maze. L e a r n i n g  and  L e t t , B. T . R e g a r d i n g R o b e r t ' s r e p o r t e d f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e a r n i n g w i t h d e l a y e d r e w a r d . L e a r n i n g and M o t i v a t i o n , 1977, 8, 136-139.  visual  L i n d s e y , G. P., & B e s t , P. J . O v e r s h a d o w i n g o f t h e l e s s s a l i e n t o f two n o v e l f l u i d s i n a t a s t e - a v e r s i o n p a r a d i g m . P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y cji o 1 ogy, 1973, 1, 13-15. L o l o r d o , V. M,, S F u r r o w , D. R. C o n t r o l by t h e a u d i t o r y o r the v i s u a l e l e m e n t o f a compound d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l u s : e f f e c t s o f f e e d back. J o u r n a l o f the E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s of B e h a v i o r , 1976, 25, 251-256. L o L o r d o , V. M., J a c o b s , W. J . , S F o r e e , D. D. F a i l u r e t o b l o c k c o n t r o l by a r e l e v a n t s t i m u l u s . P r e s e n t e d a t t h e A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e C a n a d i a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1976, Toronto, Ontario. Lubow, R. E. L a t e n t 79, 398-407.  inhibition.  Psychological Bulletin,  1973,  Lubow, R. E., R i f k i n , B., 6 A l e k , a . The c o n t e x t e f f e c t : t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t i m u l u s p r e e x p o s u r e and e n v i r o n m e n t a l preexposure determines subsequent l e a r n i n g . J o u r n a l of S l P g S . i f S g S i j i P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 2, 3 8-47. M a c k i n t o s h , N. J . The P s y c h o l o g y Academic P r e s s , 1974.  of Animal L e a r n i n g .  London:  M a c k i n t o s h , N. J . B l o c k i n g o f c o n d i t i o n e d s u p p r e s s i o n : r o l e o f t h e f i r s t compound t r i a l . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology: A n i m a l B e h a v i o r P r o c e s s e s , 1975a, 1, 335-345. M a c k i n t o s h , N. J . A t h e o r y o f a t t e n t i o n : v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e a s s o c i a b i l i t y of s t i m u l i with r e i n f o r c e m e n t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 1975b, 82, 276-298. I l a k i , W. S., J r . , & L e i t h , C. R. S h a r e d a t t e n t i o n i n t h e p i g e o n . J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1973, 1.9, 345349. M a l o n e , P. E., 6 Cox, V. C- Development o f t a s t e a v e r s i o n s i n d i v i d u a l components o f a compound g u s t a t o r y s t i m u l u s . C o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n B e h a v i o r a l B i o l o g y . 1971, 6, 341-344.  to  133  McHose, J . H. noncontextual conditions of Psychological  S Moore, J . N. E x p e c t a n c y , s a l i e n c e , and h a b i t : a i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e e f f e c t s o f changes i n t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t on s i m p l e i n s t r u m e n t a l r e s p o n s e s . Beview. 1 9 7 6 , 8 3 , 2 9 2 - 3 0 7 .  M c L a u r i n , «. A., F a r l e y , J . A., & S c a r b o r o u g h , B. B. I n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t o f p r e i r r a d i a t i o n s a c c h a r i n h a b i t u a t i o n on c o n d i t i o n e d avoidance behavior- Radiation Research. 1 9 6 3 , 1 8 , 4 7 3 - 4 7 8 M i l e s , C. G., & J e n k i n s , H. M. O v e r s h a d o w i n g and b l o c k i n g i n d i s c r i m i n a t i v e o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g . Paper d e l i v e r e d a t t h e meetings o f t h e Psychonomic S o c i e t y , 1 9 6 5 . a i l l e r , L. Compounding o f p r e - a v e r s i v e s t i m u l i . J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1 9 6 9 , VI, 2 9 3 - 2 9 9 7 M i t c h e l l , D., K i r s c h b a u m , E. H., 6 P e r r y , S. 1. E f f e c t s o f n e o p h o b i a and h a b i t u a t i o n on t h e p o i s o n - i n d u c e d a v o i d a n c e o f e x t e r o c e p t i v e s t i m u l i i n the r a t . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l £ s y c h o l c g y j _ A n i m a l B e h a v i o r P r o c e s s e s , 1 9 7 5 7 It 4 7 - 5 5 . M o r e s t , D. K. E x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o f t h e p r o j e c t i o n s o f t h e n u c l e u s of the t r a c t u s s o l i t a r i u s and t h e a r e a postrema i n the c a t . J o u r n a l of Comparative Neurology, 1 9 6 7 , 1 3 0 , 2 7 7 - 3 0 0 . H o r r i s o n , G. R., S C o l l y e r , R. T a s t e - m e d i a t e d c o n d i t i o n e d a v e r s i o n t o an e x t e r o c e p t i v e s t i m u l u s f o l l o w i n g L i C l p o i s o n i n g . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 5 , 8 6 , 51-55.  Nachman, M. L e a r n e d a v e r s i o n s t o t h e t a s t e o f l i t h i u m c h l o r i d e and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t o o t h e r s a l t s - J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and Eliisiclogical  Psychology.  1963,  56,  3 4 3 - 3 4 97"  N e v i n , J . A. S t i m u l u s c o n t r o l . I n J . A. N e v i n , & G. S. R e y n o l d s ( E d . ) , The S t u d y o f B e h a v i o r ; L e a r n i n g , M o t i y a t i o n ^ Emotion. and i n s t i n c t . G l e n v i e w , I l l i n o i s : S c o t t , F o r e s m a n , & Company, 1 9 7 3 7 x  Pp.  114-152.  Norgren, Science.  R. & L e o n a r d , C. M. T a s t e pathways i n r a t b r a i n s t e m . 1971, 1 7 3 , 1136-1139.  N o r g r e n , R., & L e o n a r d , C. A s c e n d i n g c e n t r a l g u s t a t o r y J o u r n a l c f Comparative Neurology. 1 9 7 3 , 1 5 0 , 2 1 7 - 2 2 5 . P a v l o v , I . P. C o n d i t i o n e d R e f l e x e s . L o n d o n : O x f o r d Press, 1 9 2 7 . ~  pathways.  University  S a y , B. A. S e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n : t h e e f f e c t s o f c o m b i n i n g stimuli which c o n t r o l i n c o m p a t i b l e b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s of Behavior, 1 9 6 9 , 1 2 , 5 3 9 - 5 5 0 . S a y , B. A. S t r a t e g y i n s t u d i e s o f a t t e n t i o n : a commentary on D. I . M o s t o f s k y ' s " A t t e n t i o n : c o n t e m p o r a r y t h e o r y and a n a l y s i s . " Journal of the Experimental A n a l y s i s of Behavior, 1 9 7 2 , 1 7 , 2 9 3 2 97.  134  Ray, B. A., & Sidman, M. R e i n f o r c e m e n t s c h e d u l e s and stimulus c o n t r o l . In W. M. S c h o e n f e l d ( E d . ) , The T h e o r y o f R e i n f o r c e m e n t S c h e d u l e s , New Y o r k : A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1 9 7 0 7 P p 7 187-214. R a z r a n , G. E m p i r i c a l c o d i f i c a t i o n and s p e c i f i c t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f compound s t i m u l u s c o n d i t i o n i n g : p e r c e p t i o n . In W. F. P r o k a s y ( E d . ) , C l a s s i c a l C o n d i t i o n i n g ; a Symposium, New Y o r k : A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s 7 1965., Pp."~1 8 7 - 2 1 4 7 R e b e r g , D., conditioned properties.  & B l a c k , A. H. Compound t e s t i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l l y s t i m u l i as an i n d e x o f e x c i t a t o r y and i n h i b i t o r y P s y c h o n o m i c S c i e n c e , 1969, 17, 30-31.  R e i s s , S., & Wagner, A. R. CS h a b i t u a t i o n p r o d u c e s a " l a t e n t i n h i b i t i o n e f f e c t " b u t no a c t i v e " c o n d i t i o n e d inhibition". L e a r n i n g and M o t i v a t i o n . 1972, 3, 237-245R e s c o r l a , R. A£uii§Jtin - 1969, t  Pavlovian conditioned 72, 77-94.  inhibition.  Psychological *  E e s c o r l a , R A. Summation and r e t a r d a t i o n t e s t s o f l a t e n t i n h i b i t i o n - J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971,75, 77-817 Eescorla, pressing. 1972, 79,  R. A. C o n f i g u r a l c o n d i t i o n i n g i n d i s c r e t e t r i a l b a r J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 307-317.  E e s c o r l a , R. A., 5 Wagner, A. R. A t h e o r y o f P a v l o v i a n c o n d i t i o n i n g : v a r i a t i o n s i n the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of reinforcement and n o n r e i n f o r c e m e n t - I n A. H. B l a c k , S W. F. P r o k a s y (Eds) , C l a s s i c a l C o n d i t i o n i n g I I , New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972, Pp. 6 4 - 9 9 . R e s c o r l a , R. A. E v i d e n c e f o r a u n i g u e s t i m u l u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f c o n f i g u r a l c o n d i t i o n i n g . J o u r n a l of c o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a„l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 8 5, 3 31-338. R e v u s k y , S. H- The r o l e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e i n a s s o c i a t i o n o v e r a d e l a y . In W. K. H o n i g , & H. James ( E d s . ) , A n i m a l Memory, New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1971, Pp. 155-213. E e v u s k y , S. H., & B e d a r f , i n g e s t i o n of n o v e l f o o d s .  E. W. A s s o c i a t i o n o f i l l n e s s S c i e n c e , 1967, 155, 2 19-220.  with  R e v u s k y , S., & G a r c i a , J . L e a r n e d a s s o c i a t i o n s o v e r l o n g d e l a y s . I n G. H. Bower, and J . T. Spence ( E d s . ) , P s y c h o l o g y o f L e a r n i n g O i l M o t i v a t i o n ^ A d v a n c e s i n R e s e a r c h and t h e o r y i V o l . . IV]., New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s , ~ " l 9 7 3 7 Pp. 1-84~ Roberts, learning 1976, 7,  W- A. F a i l u r e t o r e p l i c a t e v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n with a 1-min d e l a y o f r e w a r d . L e a r n i n g and M o t y a t i o n , 313-325.  R o b e r t s , W. A. S t i l l learning: a reply to  no e v i d e n c e f o r v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n L e t t . L e a r n i n g and M o t i v a t i o n , 1977, 8,  135  140-144. R o l l , D. L . , S S m i t h , J . C. C o n d i t i o n e d t a s t e a v e r s i o n i n a n e s t h e t i z e d r a t s . I n M. E. P. S e l i g m a n 6 J . L. Hager ( E d s . ) , B i o l o g i c a l B o u n d a r i e s o f L e a r n i n g , New Y o r k : Appleton~CenturyC r o f t s , 1972., PpT~98-1027 R o z i n , P. C e n t r a l o r p e r i p h e r a l m e d i a t i o n o f l e a r n i n g w i t h l o n g CS-DS i n t e r v a l s i n t h e f e e d i n g s y s t e m . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 67, 421-429. ~ ~ R o z i n , P., S K a l a t , J . W. S p e c i f i c h u n g e r s and p o i s o n avoidance a s a d a p t i v e s p e c i a l i z a t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1971, 78, 459-486. fizoska, Journal  J . B a i t shyness, a study i n r a t behavior. o f A n i m a l B e h a v i o r , 1953, 1, 128-135.  The B r i t i s h  S e l i g m a n , M. E. P. On t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f t h e l a w s o f l e a r n i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w . 1970, 77, 400-418. Seligman, Learning.  M. E . P., S H a g e r , J . L. B i o l o g i c a l B o u n d a r i e s New Y o r k : A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1972.  of  S h e t t l e w o r t h , S. J . C o n s t r a i n t s on l e a r n i n g . I n R. S. H i n d e , and E. Shaw (Eds.) , A d v a n c e s i n t h e s t u d y o f B e h a v i o r ( V o l . I V ) , New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1972, Pp. 1-78. S i e g e l , S, F l a v o r p r e e x p o s u r e and " l e a r n e d s a f e t y " . J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1974, 87, 1073-10827 Skinner, 1953.  B. F. S c i e n c e  and Human  Behavior.  New Y o r k :  Macmillan,  S u t h e r l a n d , N. S., S M a c k i n t o s h , N. J . Mechanisms o f A n i m a l D i s c r i m i n a t i o n L e a r n i n g . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1 9 7 l 7 ~ " T e r r a c e , H. S. S t i m u l u s c o n t r o l . I n W. K. H o n i g ( E d . ) , O p e r a n t B e h a v i o r : A r e a s o f R e s e a r c h a n d A p p l i c a t i o n . New Your: A p p l e t o n C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1966, Pp. 271-344. l a u k u l i s , H. K., S R e v u s k y , S. H. Odor as a c o n d i t i o n e d i n h i b i t o r : a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e R e s c o r l a - W a g n e r model t o f e e d i n g b e h a v i o r . L e a r n i n g and M o t y a t i o n , 1975, 6, 11-27. T e n n a n t , W. A., a n d B i t t e r m a n , M. E . B l o c k i n g a n d o v e r s h a d o w i n g i n two s p e c i e s o f f i s h . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology: A n i m a l B e h a v i o r P r o c e s s e s . 1975, lo4. 22-29." ~ T e s t a , T. J . C a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f a v o i d a n c e r e s p o n s e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1974, 81, 491-505. T e s t a , T. J . E f f e c t s o f s i m i l a r i t y o f l o c a t i o n and t e m p o r a l i n t e n s i t y p a t t e r n o f c o n d i t i o n e d and u n c o n d i t i o n e d s t i m u l i on the a c q u i s i t i o n o f c o n d i t i o n e d suppression i n r a t s . J o u r n a l o f l 2 £ £ l l ! £ H t a l P s y c h o l o g y : A n i m a l B e h a v i o r a l P r o c e s s e s . 1975, 104,  136  114-121. I h o r n d i k e , E . L. A n i m a l i n t e l l i g e n c e : an e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y t h e a s s o c i a t i v e p r o c e s s i n a n i m a l s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, Monograph S u p p l e m e n t , 1898, No. 8. Van H o u t e n , R., S R u d o l f , R. Summation o f p u n i s h m e n t s u p p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of the E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s of 1971, 15, 117-121."  of  Behavior,  Van H o u t e n , R., O ' L e a r y , K. D., & W e i s s , S. J . Summation o f c o n d i t o n e d s u p p r e s s i o n . J o u r n a l of the E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s of B e h a v i o r , 1970, 13, 75-81. V o g e l , J . R., & C l o d y , D. E. H a b i t u a t i o n and c o n d i t i o n e d f o o d a v e r s i o n . P s y c h o n o m i c S c i e n c e . 1972, 28, 275-276. i a g n e r , A. R. S t i m u l u s v a l i d i t y and s t i m u l u s s e l e c t i o n i n a s s o c i a t i v e l e a r n i n g . In N- J . M a c k i n t o s h , & W. K. H o n i g ( E d s . ) , Fundamental I s s u e s i n A s s o c i a t i v e L e a r n i n g , H a l i f a x : Dalhousie U n i v e r s i t y ~ P r e s s , 1969, 90-122. W e i s s , S. J . Summation o f r e s p o n s e s t r e n g t h s i n s t r u m e n t a l l y conditioned to s t i m u l i i n d i f f e r e n t sensory m o d a l i t i e s . Journal 2 l E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 68, 151-155. W e i s s , S. J . F r e e - o p e r a n t compounding o f v a r i a b l e - i n t e r v a l and low-rate d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l i . J o u r n a l of the Experimental A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1967, 10, 535-540. W e i s s , S. J . A t t e n t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s continuum. J o u r n a l of Experimental  along a composite P s y c h o l o g y , 1969,  stimulus 82, 22-27.  W e i s s , S. J . D i s c r i m i n a t i o n t r a i n i n g and s t i m u l u s c o m p o u n d i n g : c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f n o n - r e i n f o r c e m e n t and r e s p o n s e d i f f e r e n t a t i o n c o n s e q u e n c e s o f SDs. J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1971, 15, 387-402. W e i s s , S. J . S t i m u l u s compounding i n f r e e - o p e r a n t and c l a s s i c a l c o n d i t i o n i n g , a r e v i e w and a n a l y s i s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1972, 78, 189-208. W i l l i a m s , B. A. The of the Experimental  b l o c k i n g of r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1975, 24, 215-225.  W o l f , G. I n n a t e mechanisms f o r r e g u l a t i o n o f sodium i n t a k e . I n C. P. P f a f f m a n n , ( E d . ) , O l f a c t i o n and T a s t e , New York: S o c k e r f e l l e r U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969, Pp. 548-553. W o l f , M. M. Some e f f e c t s o f c o m b i n e d SDs. J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r . 1963, 6, 3 43-347. W l t t l i n , W. A., 5 B r o o k s h i r e , K. H. A p o m o r p h i n e - i n d u c e d c o n d i t i o n e d a v e r s i o n to a n o v e l food. Psychonomic S c i e n c e , 12, 217-218.  1968,  137  Z u c k e r m a n , D. C. S t e a d y s t a t e r e s p o n d i n g based upon s i m p l e compound s t i m u l i . J o u r n a l o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r , 1973, 20, 209-218.  and  138  APPENDIX A Statistical  Results  f o r Experiment  IA  X  Group 1_  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e , e . ,<j- , p r e - N a C l i n t a k e compared t o t e s t t r i a l 1 N a C l i n t a k e h a s a t v a l u e o f 8.89. A l l c o m p a r i s o n s u s e d a r e p e a t e d measures t t e s t w i t h n-1 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m . A l l v a l u e s r e p o r t e d a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l o r g r e a t e r (** s i g n i f i e s nonsignificant results). Post-conditioning  test  1 Pre-NaCl Pre-Saccharin Pre-Compound Pre-Vinegar  8. 89 4. 58 8. 59  trial  2  3  3-98 ** 5.75  3.42 ** 3.57  A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e comparisons of f l u i d i n t a k e f o r the f i r s t , s e c o n d , and t h i r d t e s t c y c l e s . S m a l l numbers t o t h e upper l e f t o f e a c h q v a l u e i n d i c a t e s t e s t t r i a l . A l l c o m p a r i s o n s were made w i t h T u k e y ' s HSD t e s t w i t h 15 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m and t h e a p p r o p r i a t e mean s g u a r e r e s i d u a l as t h e e r r o r t e r m . A l l v a l u e s r e p o r t e d a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l o r g r e a t e r (** signifies nonsignificant results). Saccharin NaCl  Compound  Vinegar  17.68  1 **  26.31  122.6 5  26.6  211.2  3 * *  3  5.65  3 * *  18.8 2 9.7 3 7.3  Saccharin  115.19  2**  123.7 3 212.32  Compound  3 * *  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment I A  X  Group 2  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t ; E x p e r i m e n t I A , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Post-conditioning test 1 Pre-NaCl Pre-Saccharin Pre-Compound  5.51 9. 95 11.47  trial  2  ** 5. 13 7.17  3  ** **  7.58  139  See  A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n ( d e g r e e s of f r e e d o m , E x p e r i m e n t I A , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Saccharin i * *  NaCl  2** 3**  10).  compound 14.86  27.5  312.3 1 *#  24.3 35.6  Saccharin  Statistical  Results  f o r Experiment  IA  X  Group 3  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d E x p e r i m e n t IA, Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Post-conditioning 1 Pre-Sucrose Pre-Quinine Pre-Compound Pre-NaCl  See  5.98 7.57 10.35 **  test  3 2.77 5.24 5.85 **  A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s (degrees of freedom, E x p e r i m e n t IA, Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n .  Sucrose  Quinine  Compound (3  See  trial  2 3.54 5.64 7.23 **  intake.  Quinine  Compound  MCI  1** 2**  1 ** 2**  19.94 24.45  3 * *  34.73  3 * *  1 **  110.14  2 6. 53  28.6  3 5. 87  35.25 M2.35 18.3 36.2  15).  140  Statistical  Results  f o r Experiment  IA  X  Group 4  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d E x p e r i m e n t I A , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Post-conditioning  Pre-Sucrose Pre-Quinine Pre-Compound Pre-NaCl  See  test  1  2  16.96 7.23 15.64 **  10. 98 4.24 12-99 **  A l l p o s s i b l e pairwise comparisons E x p e r i m e n t I A , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r  Sucrose  i n t a k e . See  trial 3 6.26 ** 9.18 **  (degrees o f freedom, 1 5 ) . explanation.  Quinine  Compound  laCl  I  27-56 34.35  2** 3**  M3.58 28.32 35.73  1  Quinine  *  *  *  M0.98 25.32 35.01  *  2 7.83 3 5. 83  M4.5 214.78 310.07  Compound  Statistical  Results f o r Experiment  Group X  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e . E a c h s o l u t i o n i n t a k e d u r i n g t e s t i n g was compared w i t h c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f t h e Compound. A l l c o m p a r i s o n s were made w i t h T u k e y ' s HSD t e s t ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 2 1 ) . A l l r e p o r t e d g v a l u e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.05 l e v e l o r b e t t e r . Post-conditioning 1  test  trial  2  3  N a C l vs pre-Compound S a c c h a r i n vs pre-Compound Compound vs pre-Compound  5.83  **  **  6.14  **  **  11.25  5.32  4. 22  141  A l l p o s s i b l e pairwise comparisons. 1 f o r further explanations. Saccharin NaCl  2  See E x p e r i m e n t  I A , Group  Compound  i** **  15.41 27.31  3**  38.21  15. 11 6,31 3 6.93  Saccharin  2  Statistical  Results  f o r Experiment I B  x  Group 2  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e { d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 1 5 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r explanation. Post-conditioning test 1  trial  2  3  Quinine ys pre-Compound  21.0  4.32  4.25  28.34  8.62  **  Sucrose ys pre-Compound  Compound _vs pre-Compound 28.58 13.21 ** A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s . See E x p e r i m e n t 1 f o r further explanation. Sucrose Compound Quinine  2  i 7.17 **  17.32 2 4.33 3**  Sucrose  2** 3#*  IA, Group  142  Statistical  Results  f o r Experiment  IB  Group 3  X  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e E a c h s o l u t i o n i n t a k e d u r i n g t e s t i n g was compared w i t h c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f V i n e g a r ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 2 0 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . PP.st-cgnditioning 1  test  trial  2  3  NaCl y s pre-Vinegar Saccharin  **  **  **  **  **  **  **  **  **  ys  pre-Vinegar Compound y s pre-Vinegar  Vinegar ys pre-Vinegar 6.68 4.67 4.43 A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s . See E x p e r i m e n t I A , Group 1 f o r further explanation. Saccharin Compound Vinegar not computed  NaCl  not computed  13.75  not Saccharin  computed  5.71  Compound  9.31  S t a t i s t i c a l R e s u l t s f o r E x p e r i m e n t I I Group P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d E x p e r i m e n t I A , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . A l l were made w i t h T u k e y ' s HSD t e s t ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , X  Post-conditioning 1  test  trial  2  3  Pre-NaCl  19.6  5.62  **  Pre-Saccharin  10-4  **  **  21.0  13.23  **  10.3  **  **  Pre-NaCl y s Compound  ~  Pre-saccharin Compound  ys  1 i n t a k e . See comparisons 20).  143  P a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s f o r Compound vs N a C l and S a c c h a r i n d u r i n g f i r s t t h r e e t e s t c y c l e s . See E x p e r i m e n t I A , Group 1 f o r further explanation.  Compound  Statistical  Saccharin  NaCl  24.72 35,07  24.53 a**  Results  f o r Experiment  I I  X  Group 2  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 16) . See E x p e r i m e n t II., Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r explanation. Post-conditioning 1  test  trial  2  3  Pre-NaCl  9.33  **  **  Pre-Saccharin  5.33  **  **  13.41  10.21  **  Pre-NaCl ys Compound ~  Pre-Saccharin ys Compound 6.5 ** ** P a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s f o r Compound y s N a C l and S a c c h a r i n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t t h r e e t e s t c y c l e s . See E x p e r i m e n t IA, Group 1 for further explanation. Saccharin Compound  2  Statistical  1** ** 3** Results  NaCl 1** 29.36 35.-j f o r Experiment  I I  X  Group 3  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 2 5 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I I , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r explanation. Post-conditioning 1  test  trial  2  3  Pre-NaCl  25.86  4.57  **  Pre-Saccharin  18.11  6.32  4-75  Pre-Vinegar  **  not computed  not computed  144  Pre-NaCl ys Compound Pre-Saccharin Compound  IA,  26.11  12.32  18.25  4.63  **  ys  P a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s f o r s o l u t i o n s shown. See E x p e r i m e n t Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Saccharin  laCl  2**  25. 13  3**  3**  120.6  120.37  i  Compound Vinegar Statistical  Results  Compound  * *  f o r Experiment  320.75 I I  X  Group 4  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 2 5 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I I , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r explanation. Post-conditioning 1  test  trial  2  3  Pre-Vinegar  13.32  9.32  7. 31  Pre-Coffee  15.02  7.13  **  Pre-Vinegar ys Compound  13.6  11. 13  5.26  Pre-Coffee Compound  17.62  14.31  6. 42  Pre-Vinegar ys NaCl+Saccharin  **  **  Pre-Coffee ys NaCl+Saccharin  5.98  IA,  ys  not computed  not computed P a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s f o r s o l u t i o n s shown. See E x p e r i m e n t Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n .  Compound NaCl + Saccharin  Vinegar  Coffee  1**  i  2**  2**  3**  3 4. 73  113.6  18.31  Compound  * *  115.02  145  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment  III  x  Group 1  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 1 5 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . P r e - y s p o s t - N a C l u s e d a r e p e a t e d measures t t e s t . Post-conditioning  test  trial  NaCl y s pre-NaCl  t=2.64  **  **  6.23  **  **  Saccharin ys pre-Compound  Compound vs p r e - Compound 7.09 ** ** A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s . See E x p e r i m e n t 1 f o r further explanation. Saccharin Compound M1.0 24.12 not computed  NaCl  3  Saccharin  1  3  2  IA, Group  10.8 2^,63 not computed  i ** ** 3**  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment  IV  X  Group 1  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 1 5 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r explanation. Ppst7conditioninq 1  test  trial  2  3  NaCl y s pre-NaCl  **  **  **  pre-Saccharin  **  **  **  Saccharin ys pre-Saccharin  6.38  **  **  Compound y s  146  A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e comparisons. 1 f o r further explanation. Compound NaCl  2  M3.25 ** not computed  3  See E x p e r i m e n t  I A , Group  Saccharin M2.25 27.33 not computed 3  1 ** 24.27  Compound  3**  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment  IV  X  Group 2  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e {degrees o f f r e e d o m , 1 5 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r explanation. Post-conditioaing 1  test  trial  2  3  Saccharin ys pre-Saccharin  **  **  not computed  NaCl y s pre-NaCl  13.42  13.42  10.11  A l l p o s s i b l e pairwise comparisons. 1 f o rfurther explanation. Compound Saccharin  Compound  17.89 24.13 3**  See E x p e r i m e n t  NaCl 2  M2.0 6.63 not computed  3  14. 10 24. 29 3**  I A , Group  147  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment  V  x  Group jl  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 1 5 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r explanation. Post-conditioning 1  test  trial  2  3  NaCl y s pre-Compound  **  **  **  5.15  **  **  Saccharin ys pre-Compound  Compound y s pre-Compound 6.15 ** ** A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s . See E x p e r i m e n t 1 f o r further explanation. Saccharin Compound NaCl  17.26 2 4.63  IA, Group  18.26 25.22  3**  3**  1 **  Saccharin  2  ** 3**  Statistical  Results  f o r Experiment  V  x  Group 2  S e l e c t e d p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s o n l y . A l l c o m p a r i s o n s used r e p e a t e d measures t t e s t s . See E x p e r i m e n t I A , Group 1 f o r further explanation. Saccharin Compound  17.81 26.71 33.52  148  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment  V  Group 3  x  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 1 5 ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r explanation. Po s t - c on d i t i o n i n g t e s t 1  trial  2  NaCl y s pre-Compound  4.77  **  4.17  **  Saccharin ys pre-Compound  Compound js pre-Compound 7.84 ** a l l p o s s i b l e pairwise comparisons. 1 f o r further explanation. Saccharin NaCl  z**  I A , Group  Compound  2  3**  Saccharin  See E x p e r i m e n t  ** 3** 1 **  2  ** 3 * *  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment  VI  X  Group 1  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e (degrees of freedom, 15). Each s o l u t i o n i n t a k e d u r i n g t e s t i n g was compared w i t h c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f S a c c h a r i n . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . R P § £, ~ £ SB & i £ i Q.P I £ 3 Mjt 1  trial  2  3  NaCl y s pre-Saccharin  15.48  5.73  **  Saccharin ys pre- Saccharin Compound y s pre-Saccharin  15.24  10. 23  6. 23  15.58  15-58  15.58  149  A l l p o s s i b l e pairwise comparisons. 1 f o r further explanation. Saccharin  NaCl  2  **  I A , Group  Compound  2  **  3 * *  3 * *  Saccharin  2  1 ** ** 3  Statistical  See E x p e r i m e n t  * *  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment  VI  X  Group 2  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 1 5 ) . Each s o l u t i o n i n t a k e d u r i n g t e s t i n g was compared w i t h c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f S a c c h a r i n . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Post-conditioning test  trial  1  2  3  25.68  16,37  7.25  24.38  16.21  10.12  NaCl y s pre-NaCl Saccharin ys pre-NaCl  Compound y s pre-NaCl 26.31 22.31 17.23 A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s . See E x p e r i m e n t IA, Group 1 f o r further explanation. Saccharin NaCl  2  **  Compound 2**  3 * *  1  Saccharin  2  3 * * * *  ** 3 * *  Statistical The o n l y  Results  results  f o r Experiment  VT  X  Group 3  of importance are r e p o r t e d  i n the text.  150  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Bxperiment  VI  Group 4  x  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 1 5 ) . NaCl and S a c c h a r i n were compared to p r e - c o n d i t i o n i n g l e v e l s , w h i l e Compound i n t a k e was compared t o p r e - c o n d i t i o n i n g l e v e l s o f b o t h s o l u t i o n s . See E x p e r i m e n t IB, Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Post-conditioning test 1  trial  2  3  Pre-NaCl  4.53  **  **  Pre-Saccharin  23.17  22.02  20.43  24.23  23.12  21.04  Compound  vs  pre-NaCl  ~  Compound y s pre-Saccharin 22.14 21.13 20.67 A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e c o m p a r i s o n s . See E x p e r i m e n t IA, Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n ( c o n s u m p t i o n measures were c o n v e r t e d t o p e r c e n t b a s e l i n e l e v e l s ; s e e E x p e r i m e n t IA i n t e x t ) .  NaCl  Saccharin  Compound  14.44 28.73 19.12  14.54 29.27 320.73  3  * *  l  Saccharin  2  **  3**  Statistical  R e s u l t s f o r Experiment  VI  X  Group 5  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s of f r e e d o m , 2 0 ) . Each s o l u t i o n i n t a k e d u r i n g t e s t i n g was compared w i t h t h e f i r s t c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f S a c c h a r i n . See E x p e r i m e n t IB, Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Post-conditioning 1 NaCl  test  trial  2  3  ys  pre-Saccharin Saccharin ys pre-Saccharin Vinegar ys pre-Saccharin  12.28  7.23  **  12.37  12.37  **  **  12.37 not computed  151  Compound vs pre-Saccharin  12.37  12.37  A l l p o s s i b l e pairwise comparisons. 1 f o rfurther explanation.  NaCl  12.25 See E x p e r i m e n t  IA, Group  Saccharin  Compound  Vinegar  24.35 319.73  i ** 24.35 319.65  MO.89 29.23 not computed  I **  M0.98 217.68 not computed  3  2**  Saccharin  3 **  3  MO.98 2 17.68 not computed  Compound  3  Statistical  Results  f o r Experiment  VI  A  Group 6  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e ( d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , 2 0 ) . Each s o l u t i o n i n t a k e d u r i n g t e s t i n g was compared t o c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f S a c c h a r i n . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Post-conditioning 1  test  trial  2  3  N a C l vs pre-Saccharin Saccharin ys pre-Saccharin Vinegar y s pre-Saccharin Compound y s pre-Saccharin  **  **  **  6-89 **  6.53 not computed  5. 95 not computed  6,93  4.56  A l l p o s s i b l e pairwise comparisons. 1 f o r further explanation. Saccharin  NaCl  2  i** ** 312.43  See E x p e r i m e n t  Compound *** 2** 3**  I A , Group  Vinegar 15.82 2 t computed n 0  3  n  o  t  computed  152  i ** Saccharin  18.73  2not  2**  3  3**  computed not computed  18.57 2 not computed not computed  Compound  3  Statistical  Results  f o r Experiment  VI  x  Group 7  P r e - and p o s t - c o n d i t i o n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s o f f l u i d i n t a k e (degrees of freedom, 2 0 ) . Each s o l u t i o n i n t a k e d u r i n g t e s t i n g was compared with c o n d i t i o n i n g day i n t a k e o f t h e p r e - c o n d i t i o n e d s o l u t i o n ( S a c c h a r i n o r N a C l f o r d i f f e r e n t s u b g r o u p s ) . See E x p e r i m e n t I B , Group 1 f o r f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Post-conditioning test 1  trial  2  3  Added s o l u t i o n v s pre-conditioned solution  23.17  1 6. 3  5. 2  Pre-conditioned solution, preys post- intake  23.29  21.3  19.78  Compound y s pre-conditioned solution  23.29  21-47  13.12  not computed  not computed  Vinegar ys pre-conditioned solution  A l l p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e comparisons1 f o r further explanation.  See E x p e r i m e n t  I A , Group  Pre-conditioned solution  Added s o l u t i o n  i ** 25.02 3  Pre-conditioned solution  4. 3  Compound  Vinegar  1 **  11 5. 3 3 2not computed not computed  2 5. 33 3**  i ** 2**  3  M5.47 not computed  2  3 **  3  not computed  1 1 5 . 3 3  Compound  2  3  not computed not computed  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094246/manifest

Comment

Related Items